"Explosion" in Manchester

[AE Bravo]

Would certainly explain why Mein Kampf is a best seller in the middle east.

Of course there's no way that is because of academic purposes like European countries...

On a side note, I don't think much of Trump calling bombers "losers." Playground insults won't hurt their feelings.

[Husar]

What people seem to forget is that the Western wealth is largely based on globalism. If China decided that selling its rare earths to the West is not in the best interest of its people and it should rather employ its own people to engineer and build semiconductor chips, then we'll all be stuck with Chinese-engineered and -manufactured smartphones and computers after a while or they won't even sell them to us and we can revert to the days of paper-based industry while China digitalizes away.

http://www.mining.com/rare-earths-ba...corps-debacle/

Sounds like a great idea, that train of thought. I'm sure we'd all be better off if nations just kept to themselves and only took care of their own.
Additional advantage, we wouldn't be here arguing about it once our computers or internet infrastructure broke down.

[Fragony]

Of course there's no way that is because of academic purposes like European countries...

There must be many academies than, a quik calculation comes down to at least more than a thousand versions of Mein Kampf per student. I own a copy as well, second print pretty valauble. But educational purpuso, about what, there is nothing to learn from it it's gibberish. Maybe it's so popular because Hitler hated jews and blamed them for, well just about everything. Should sound familiar Tried reading it but my German isn't so good.

[AE Bravo]

I'll give you that it might be a bestseller in Turkey, but the fact that the online version is popular doesn't really mean anything. There's a difference between curiosity/reference and admiration. He is possibly the most famous person in human history.

[Montmorency]

I'll give you that it might be a bestseller in Turkey, but the fact that the online version is popular doesn't really mean anything. There's a difference between curiosity/reference and admiration. He is possibly the most famous person in human history.

Not a good accounting, but you might wonder how it connects to the various nationalisms of the region. Aside from the Jew-hating, how much sympathy do (and have) Arabs had for the brand of authoritarian nationalist philosophy that Hitler outlined, especially with respect to local conditions.

[Fragony]

I'll give you that it might be a bestseller in Turkey, but the fact that the online version is popular doesn't really mean anything. There's a difference between curiosity/reference and admiration. He is possibly the most famous person in human history.

Not so sure it doesn't says anything, especially not in Turkey now as things are going there as they are going. For me it's just a cool thing to have shelved just for the sake of having it. There are things to watch carefully, not that stuid book and what's in it but that Erdokhan is a dangerous man,so are his fans here

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, let's talk for a moment about Nazi "barbarism".

Nazi Germany was a highly advanced, ordered, cultured, and in some ways "progressive" society. Nazi Scientists identified the "Jews" as a distinct race within Germany who refused to integrate into the Reich, confirming their Leader's suspicion about these people. Nazi engineers and planners then came up with a typically German (logical and efficient) way of solving this problem.

That solution which we call "The Holocaust" was, in fact, mechanised culling of a type actually far more humane than methods we use for pest control in the modern day - see discussion of the downsides of shooting foxes.

The point is, and this is essential, is that only a Civilised Nation could have done what the Nazi's did, both morally as well as technologically a pre-Enlightenment society would have been incapable of such "barbarity" because, at the end, the Nazi's were actually the polar opposite of barbarians.

[Montmorency]

OK, let's talk for a moment about Nazi "barbarism".

Nazi Germany was a highly advanced, ordered, cultured, and in some ways "progressive" society. Nazi Scientists identified the "Jews" as a distinct race within Germany who refused to integrate into the Reich, confirming their Leader's suspicion about these people. Nazi engineers and planners then came up with a typically German (logical and efficient) way of solving this problem.

That solution which we call "The Holocaust" was, in fact, mechanised culling of a type actually far more humane than methods we use for pest control in the modern day - see discussion of the downsides of shooting foxes.

The point is, and this is essential, is that only a Civilised Nation could have done what the Nazi's did, both morally as well as technologically a pre-Enlightenment society would have been incapable of such "barbarity" because, at the end, the Nazi's were actually the polar opposite of barbarians.

While focusing on the killing process, you seem to forget the violence, torture, forced labor, and protraction that precede it. And given the drain it took on the German war economy, and the ultimate failure of existing camps to liquidate their occupants, I would argue against their efficiency (though to be fair saboteurs and resistors at all levels were part of this picture)

So what's barbarism? Does Japanese vivisection and biowarfare testing not count either? Be sure to distinguish between characteristics of an act itself, and the circumstances in which it appears. Is it just a Hellenic "not-us", or the Renaissance equivalent in "Gothic"? Is it specific to a particular time-period, or the size of the state apparatus?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

OK, let's talk for a moment about Nazi "barbarism".

Nazi Germany was a highly advanced, ordered, cultured, and in some ways "progressive" society. Nazi Scientists identified the "Jews" as a distinct race within Germany who refused to integrate into the Reich, confirming their Leader's suspicion about these people. Nazi engineers and planners then came up with a typically German (logical and efficient) way of solving this problem.

That solution which we call "The Holocaust" was, in fact, mechanised culling of a type actually far more humane than methods we use for pest control in the modern day - see discussion of the downsides of shooting foxes.

The point is, and this is essential, is that only a Civilised Nation could have done what the Nazi's did, both morally as well as technologically a pre-Enlightenment society would have been incapable of such "barbarity" because, at the end, the Nazi's were actually the polar opposite of barbarians.

I said much the same a few posts back.

[Montmorency]

I said much the same a few posts back.

While I'm at disagreeing, I have to disagree that you said much the same a few posts back.

You linked "total war" to the size and organization of a country, but when PVC deals with "barbarism" he seems to imply, among other things, that the German system was somehow more humane than past analogs, or maybe he took the weak tautological position that Nazi actions were not barbaric because the Nazis were not barbarians and only barbarians can do barbaric things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While focusing on the killing process, you seem to forget the violence, torture, forced labor, and protraction that precede it. And given the drain it took on the German war economy, and the ultimate failure of existing camps to liquidate their occupants, I would argue against their efficiency (though to be fair saboteurs and resistors at all levels were part of this picture)

So what's barbarism? Does Japanese vivisection and biowarfare testing not count either? Be sure to distinguish between characteristics of an act itself, and the circumstances in which it appears. Is it just a Hellenic "not-us", or the Renaissance equivalent in "Gothic"? Is it specific to a particular time-period, or the size of the state apparatus?

While I'm at disagreeing, I have to disagree that you said much the same a few posts back.

You linked "total war" to the size and organization of a country, but when PVC deals with "barbarism" he seems to imply, among other things, that the German system was somehow more humane than past analogs, or maybe he took the weak tautological position that Nazi actions were not barbaric because the Nazis were not barbarians and only barbarians can do barbaric things.

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

The Japanese, like the Germans, were civilised people - they were the polar opposite of barbarians.

Ever heard the old adage that if you go too far one way you end up right back at the beginning.

Barbarians are, per definition not rational, they do not make rational decisions. The Nazi's made exclusively rational decisions, devoid of any morals or compassion.

You have fallen into the trap of equating barbarism with evil and civilisation with goodness. I was trying to break you out that narrow view with rhetoric, but I see you failed to grasp the point.

[Montmorency]

Barbarians are, per definition not rational, they do not make rational decisions. The Nazi's made exclusively rational decisions, devoid of any morals or compassion.

That's a poor definition of barbarism, I'm afraid. Nazi's made the decision to exterminate on the moral basis of Nazi ideology's racial order and principles of German security and prosperity. Not just because it would be economically beneficial somehow, but because that was the morally correct order of things to enforce.

You would do nothing but abrogate barbarism. Why couldn't a "civilized" society be both civilized and barbaric? Why would they be opposites, if you feel that taking them as opposites is a narrow rhetorical view?

Thumbs down.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bar, bar, bar.

It is the bleating the sheep, as opposed tot he rational discourse of men.

So, like it or not, it is the correct definition.

You are attempting to re-purpose barbarians for your own rhetorical benefit rather than face up to the reality that Nazisim is one logical progression of the Enlightenment.

The Nazi order was not "moral" in the mundane sense, the order was determined by the Nazi understanding of biological science, specifically the heritability of traits. The Nazi's looked at Germany and dertmined that it was both advanced AND ordered, they then looked at their near relatives the Anglo-Saxons, and the Dutch and saw more or less the same. The further a people diverged from Aryanism, however, the lower down the socio-economic order their society was.

You must remember that this was a widely accepted scientific view at the time, that white people were "more evolved" than other races, it was the basis for Segregation in the US Army - for example.

All the Nazi's did was take this to a logical conclusion bereft of any moral constraints - i.e. if Aryans are better than other people then application of Darwinian principles allows for the extermination of other competing populations.

[Montmorency]

Bar, bar, bar.

It is the bleating the sheep, as opposed tot he rational discourse of men.

So, like it or not, it is the correct definition.

You are attempting to re-purpose barbarians for your own rhetorical benefit rather than face up to the reality that Nazisim is one logical progression of the Enlightenment.

You did not read me correctly, if you saw anywhere that I denied the roots of Nazism in the Enlightenment. I thank you for clarifying that you use it in the Greek sense, but you have not grasped the real substance of the Greek sense, which was as I said, "not-us". A face-value application from within the original stance leaves us with no barbarians to speak of.

The Nazi order was not "moral" in the mundane sense, the order was determined by the Nazi understanding of biological science, specifically the heritability of traits. The Nazi's looked at Germany and dertmined that it was both advanced AND ordered, they then looked at their near relatives the Anglo-Saxons, and the Dutch and saw more or less the same. The further a people diverged from Aryanism, however, the lower down the socio-economic order their society was.

You must remember that this was a widely accepted scientific view at the time, that white people were "more evolved" than other races, it was the basis for Segregation in the US Army - for example.

All the Nazi's did was take this to a logical conclusion bereft of any moral constraints - i.e. if Aryans are better than other people then application of Darwinian principles allows for the extermination of other competing populations.

You are wrong to take Nazi philosophy as amoral, when Hitler specifically advanced exclusion and extermination as moral over other means of dealing with the problems he identified. Cooperation and co-existence wouldn't simply be un-optimal in this understanding, but wrong and a disgrace to the German people. Soviet Communism was more interested in "rational application" than Nazism, which primarily dealt with the moral order of human existence.

[Strike For The South]

The majority of holocaust victims were not killed in an orderly fashion. Most were simply shot, starved, or burned in the pale.

[Idaho]

OK, let's talk for a moment about Nazi "barbarism".

Nazi Germany was a highly advanced, ordered, cultured, and in some ways "progressive" society. Nazi Scientists identified the "Jews" as a distinct race within Germany who refused to integrate into the Reich, confirming their Leader's suspicion about these people. Nazi engineers and planners then came up with a typically German (logical and efficient) way of solving this problem.

That solution which we call "The Holocaust" was, in fact, mechanised culling of a type actually far more humane than methods we use for pest control in the modern day - see discussion of the downsides of shooting foxes.

The point is, and this is essential, is that only a Civilised Nation could have done what the Nazi's did, both morally as well as technologically a pre-Enlightenment society would have been incapable of such "barbarity" because, at the end, the Nazi's were actually the polar opposite of barbarians.

I understand that you are attempting to make a subtle point of culture and definition. However it's totally misguided in this case in both subject matter and historical reality. You urgently need to read more about the eastern front and the genocide.

The idea that barbarism refers only to a particular "style" of cruelty, horror and brutality is a dead end argument in this context, and hints at a coldness and lack of humanity that you need to look into.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I understand that you are attempting to make a subtle point of culture and definition. However it's totally misguided in this case in both subject matter and historical reality. You urgently need to read more about the eastern front and the genocide.

The idea that barbarism refers only to a particular "style" of cruelty, horror and brutality is a dead end argument in this context, and hints at a coldness and lack of humanity that you need to look into.

Being able to separate one's emotions from one's intellect is not evidence of a lack of humanity unless you start to think about acting on the conclusion.

The point here is not all that subtle.

To define the Nazi's as "barbarians" is to distance ourselves from the Nazi mode of thought, to declare that what they thought and what they did is unintelligible to us. The truth of the matter is exactly the opposite, the Nazi mode of thought is entirely intelligible to us. The same logical process that led the Nazi's to kill over six million people in Death Camps and Labour Camps is at work today, you can see it in the way the EU has dealt with the debt crisis in Southern Europe and you can see it in the calls to deport all Muslims from the UK.

Since the end of the Second World War we have worked very hard at not empathising with Nazi's, I don't mean the leadership, I mean the rank and file. By labelling the Nazis "barbarians" we are saying "we could not do that".

That's a lie - and a dangerous one.

[Husar]

No, the Nazi killing of jews was not a moral decision because "it was the right thing to do", that view forgets several things and you hurt your credibility when you write"Nazi's" as a plural form, resist the dark side of bad grammar!
Nitpicking aside, the Nazis had this idea that the jews were some kind of closed cabal that was trying to subjugate the entire world. There were the Jewish Bolsheviks and the Jewish Capitalists and they were all out to get the Good Aryans back into their world order. Therefore every jew in German-occupied territory was an enemy spy on top of being a subhuman with a lower set of morals and a greater capacity for evil. Their mere existence was therefore seen as a threat to national security and their murder a vital part of the war effort. From that point of view, the killing spree did not hurt the war effort, it helped the war effort by removing enemy agents from within.

The definition PVC uses for barbarism is the widespread one, just compare it to a game like Civilization V, which uses exactly the same definition, where barbarians are distinct from civilized societies. There might be academics who would like to use a different definition but that doesn't count here, cannot be expected to be common knowledge and most of all, doesn't invalidate the point as the definition PVC used is not wrong just because it differs from another one.

What makes this topic further exciting is that I sense a big deal of sarcasm in PVC's posts that seems to have gone by completely unnoticed. Perhaps much like my sarcasm, which might also explain why I sense it. He keeps making quips about how enlightenment and progressivism led the Nazis to do what they did, given his more catholic traditional background, I would say that's an excellent trap.........wait, the EU, seriously? Now you really ruined that and it was so promising... Remove that and leave the calls to remove muslims, because that actually fits.

[Gilrandir]

He was a soldier. Served in front line combat in WW1 as a "runner." This was easy duty between things as you hung around the regimental headquarters bunker in the 2nd or 3rd line. However, the job was to run messages and orders forward during attacks etc. in case wired communication broke down, as it often did.

I know that. But the argument was about murdering women and children by Einsatzgruppen during WWII and how it was incompatible with a warrior's ethic code. At that time Hitler was not a warrior, nor a soldier. So in fact, he didn't kill a single person, just gave orders to do it.

Barbarians are, per definition not rational, they do not make rational decisions.

I believe they do make decisions which are rational FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. It is the fault of un-barbarians if they can't see the logics of such decisions. And I think barbarians are of the same opinion of the decisions made by un-barbarians.

[Husar]

But the argument was about murdering women and children by Einsatzgruppen during WWII and how it was incompatible with a warrior's ethic code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres

French troops and Indian allies killed around 1,000 Fox Indians men, women and children in a five-day massacre near the head of the Detroit River.
[...]
Natchez Indians attacked French settlements near present-day Natchez, Mississippi, killing more than 200 French colonists.
[...]
Soldiers under General Henry Atkinson and armed volunteers killed around 150 Indian men, women and children near present-day Victory, Wisconsin.
[...]
The 12 leaders of a Comanche delegation (65 people including 35 women and children) were shot in San Antonio, Texas, while trying to escape the local jail. 23 others including 5 women and children were killed in or around the city.
[...]
Indians massacred eighteen members and relatives of the Killough family in Texas.
[...]
A hunting party of 26 friendly Wichita and Caddo Indians was massacred by Texas Rangers under Captain Samuel Highsmithe, in a valley south of Brazos River. 25 men and boys were killed, and only one child managed to escape.
[...]
Members of the U.S. 7th Cavalry attacked and killed between 130 and 250 Sioux men, women and children at Wounded Knee, South Dakota.

http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM

Even the Hebrews, according the Bible, put to the sword those they conquered. It was the Assyrians, however, whose reputation for such savagery would be transmitted down the ages. They would reward their soldiers for every severed head they brought in from the field, whether enemy fighters or not. They would decapitate or club to death captured soldiers; they would slice off the ears, noses, hands and feet of nobles, throw them from high towers, flay them and their children to death, or roast them over a slow fire. Consider what one historian writes about the capture of Damascus by King Sargon of Assyria.
[...]
So in revenge for an arrow from Nishapur's walls that killed Jinghiz Khan's son-in-law in 1221, when the city was finally captured the Mongol Tolui massacred its unarmed inhabitants.3 So this ancient capital of Khorassan in Persia was then a "scene of a carnival of blood scarcely surpassed even in Mongol annals. . . . Separate piles of heads of men, women, and children were built into pyramids; and even cats and dogs were killed in the streets."4 So an utterly fantastic 1,747,000 human beings reportedly were slaughtered, a number exceeding the contemporary population of Hawaii, Rhode Island, or New Hampshire; a number that is around a third of the total Jews murdered by Hitler.5 This possible world record massacre is only a fugitive datum, unrecorded in most histories.
[...]
In massacre and generalized killing, other nations made their own very bloody contributions to our history. When the Ottoman Mohammed II sieged and finally took Constantinople in 1452, he massacred thousands.48
[...]
In destroying whole populations and in the pursuit and accomplishment of mass murder, Europeans were no better. In 1527 the army of Tirolese condottiere Frunsberg and Charles, Duke of Bourbin, captured and sacked Rome. Historians record that at a minimum 2,000 corpses were thrown into the Tiber river and 9,800 dead were buried;50 many more were killed. During the Thirty Years War the Count of Tilly and Count zu Pappenheim may have massacred as many as 30,000 inhabitants of Magdeburg when the city fell to them after a six-month siege.51 Magdeburg was only one of numerous massacres of this very destructive war. But probably more common folk died when towns and farms in the path of invading or marauding armies were pillaged and families killed. Moreover, many died from famine and disease caused by passing armies. The German Empire alone may have lost more than 7,500,000 people in the war,52 most doubtless perishing from such causes. The population of Bohemia was been reduced from around 4,000,000 people to possibly no more than 800,000.53 Putting a number of such figures together I estimate that in this war alone from 2,000,000 to over 11,000,000 people were probably murdered.54 That aside from combat and nondemocidal famine and disease.55

Really? Warrior ethics?

[Montmorency]

No, the Nazi killing of jews was not a moral decision because "it was the right thing to do", that view forgets several things and you hurt your credibility when you write"Nazi's" as a plural form, resist the dark side of bad grammar!
Nitpicking aside, the Nazis had this idea that the jews were some kind of closed cabal that was trying to subjugate the entire world. There were the Jewish Bolsheviks and the Jewish Capitalists and they were all out to get the Good Aryans back into their world order. Therefore every jew in German-occupied territory was an enemy spy on top of being a subhuman with a lower set of morals and a greater capacity for evil. Their mere existence was therefore seen as a threat to national security and their murder a vital part of the war effort. From that point of view, the killing spree did not hurt the war effort, it helped the war effort by removing enemy agents from within.

The definition PVC uses for barbarism is the widespread one, just compare it to a game like Civilization V, which uses exactly the same definition, where barbarians are distinct from civilized societies. There might be academics who would like to use a different definition but that doesn't count here, cannot be expected to be common knowledge and most of all, doesn't invalidate the point as the definition PVC used is not wrong just because it differs from another one.

What makes this topic further exciting is that I sense a big deal of sarcasm in PVC's posts that seems to have gone by completely unnoticed. Perhaps much like my sarcasm, which might also explain why I sense it. He keeps making quips about how enlightenment and progressivism led the Nazis to do what they did, given his more catholic traditional background, I would say that's an excellent trap.........wait, the EU, seriously? Now you really ruined that and it was so promising... Remove that and leave the calls to remove muslims, because that actually fits.

Hitler felt that the "secular decay" of post-Reformation Europe - and to some extent the broad history of Christian doctrine - was a Jewish contrivance and so he sought to return to the pure "ancient law". The Jews and other races, besides creating a material threat to the future of the Aryan race, embodied a simply incorrect and debased moral philosophy. And that's what had to be replaced in the Nazis' view. You can't separate these issues, and you can only confuse yourself about Nazism if you try to. National Socialism was a sprawling and pervasive school of thought that had something to say about almost everything, and it largely replaced or superseded other ways of thinking in the minds of commoners and scholars alike, 1933-45.

As for barbarism, I have agreed with PVC that calling Nazi or other regimes we don't like "barbaric" is a form of rhetorical distancing, while emphasizing how using the original Greek sense of barbarian on its face undermines his position. The fundamental premise of "barbarian" or "barbarism", as I've said, is no more than rhetorical distancing. This was true for the ancient context, it was true for the Anglo-centric 19th century application that saw a hierarchy between savagery, barbarism, and civilization, and it's true for the contemporary usage. The main distinction for the contemporary usage is that it does not identify barbarians as being straightforwardly inferior, but as violating some concept of international norms of behavior. You all know that the language of transnational human rights has become paradigmatic since WW2; it's all part-and-parcel.

I haven't played Civilization, but I imagine there are some specific mechanical differences between "barbaric" and "civilized" cultures that don't quite relate to barbarism as we've been discussing it here - because Civilization is a videogame and so isn't interested in definitions but in applications. In Civ4, barbarians are mostly stereotypical content like Germanic, Celtic, and nomadic tribes, as well as some non-playable civs such as Etruscans, Hittites and Assyrians. That doesn't impinge on this thread.

[Husar]

Hitler felt that the "secular decay" of post-Reformation Europe - and to some extent the broad history of Christian doctrine - was a Jewish contrivance and so he sought to return to the pure "ancient law". The Jews and other races, besides creating a material threat to the future of the Aryan race, embodied a simply incorrect and debased moral philosophy. And that's what had to be replaced in the Nazis' view. You can't separate these issues, and you can only confuse yourself about Nazism if you try to.

I didn't want to, I just saw your point that the mass-killing was hurting the war effort as slightly wrong from the Nazis' point of view, since in their view, the people they killed were fifth columnists.

On the barbarism there are obviously multiple definitions:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbarism

Definition of barbarism
1
a : a barbarian or barbarous social or intellectual condition : backwardness
b : the practice or display of barbarian acts, attitudes, or ideas
2
: an idea, act, or expression that in form or use offends against contemporary standards of good taste or acceptability

PVC used definition one (a) and you seem to use definition two, doesn't make either of you wrong, does it?

[Montmorency]

I didn't want to, I just saw your point that the mass-killing was hurting the war effort as slightly wrong from the Nazis' point of view,

In that post, I was responding to the efficiency of the process itself, not what the Nazis' feelings on it or its necessity were. It was a drain in the sense that it was more inefficient than it could have been in many places and times, at least towards the sole objective of eliminating demographics or captives belonging to those demographics.

PVC used definition one (a) and you seem to use definition two, doesn't make either of you wrong, does it?

No no, PVC wasn't hewing to either of those definitions. Read again with that in mind.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, the Nazi killing of jews was not a moral decision because "it was the right thing to do", that view forgets several things and you hurt your credibility when you write"Nazi's" as a plural form, resist the dark side of bad grammar!
Nitpicking aside, the Nazis had this idea that the jews were some kind of closed cabal that was trying to subjugate the entire world. There were the Jewish Bolsheviks and the Jewish Capitalists and they were all out to get the Good Aryans back into their world order. Therefore every jew in German-occupied territory was an enemy spy on top of being a subhuman with a lower set of morals and a greater capacity for evil. Their mere existence was therefore seen as a threat to national security and their murder a vital part of the war effort. From that point of view, the killing spree did not hurt the war effort, it helped the war effort by removing enemy agents from within.

The definition PVC uses for barbarism is the widespread one, just compare it to a game like Civilization V, which uses exactly the same definition, where barbarians are distinct from civilized societies. There might be academics who would like to use a different definition but that doesn't count here, cannot be expected to be common knowledge and most of all, doesn't invalidate the point as the definition PVC used is not wrong just because it differs from another one.

What makes this topic further exciting is that I sense a big deal of sarcasm in PVC's posts that seems to have gone by completely unnoticed. Perhaps much like my sarcasm, which might also explain why I sense it. He keeps making quips about how enlightenment and progressivism led the Nazis to do what they did, given his more catholic traditional background, I would say that's an excellent trap.........wait, the EU, seriously? Now you really ruined that and it was so promising... Remove that and leave the calls to remove muslims, because that actually fits.

I would not say I was being sarcastic, but I find it ironic that the Nazis can be used to argue that scientific progress can be linked to moral decay. Overall though, the point is that Nazi Germany is not that divorced from either the other civilisations around at the time, or our modern world.

The Nazis are not sufficiently "other" to qualify as barbarians when compared to modern Western Civilisation because their motives and actions are entirely intelligible if you just accept a few basic fundamental "truths" that we are, in fact, going to reject out of hand.

As regards comparison to the EU - the point there was that a lot of what the Eurozone has done is attempted to apply a purely mechanical solution to an economic problem as though all problem have mechanical solutions, a view which springs entirely from Enlightenment thought. It is also a view I consider fundamentally flawed, but then I believe in an omnipotent deity, and I'm willing to countenance piskies, and ghosts.

Note 1. I naturally refer to "Nazi's" in plural because NAZI is an acronym. However, it would be churlish to dissagree with an educated German on the subject, so I won't.

Note 2. If you have correctly read my point but miss-identified my my irony as sarcasm then perhaps we have struck upon the precise boundary between wry British irony and dry German Sarcasm. Might we call it the "Husar-Philippus Demarcation Point"? Perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize is due to us in the future for this contribution to international harmony and understanding?

I believe they do make decisions which are rational FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. It is the fault of un-barbarians if they can't see the logics of such decisions. And I think barbarians are of the same opinion of the decisions made by un-barbarians.

Yes, you're absolutely right, everybody is a barbarian to somebody, quisque barbarus est alio.

No no, PVC wasn't hewing to either of those definitions. Read again with that in mind.

No, no. I would say Husar is more or less right - although I'm using definition 1.b to an extent too. Perception of barkwardness vs our "advanced" civilisation is definitely key here - though.

[Husar]

Note 1. I naturally refer to "Nazi's" in plural because NAZI is an acronym. However, it would be churlish to dissagree with an educated German on the subject, so I won't.

That was mostly in reply to Monty, but the apostrophe only belongs there in the genitive form either way. "Nazis" is the plural and "Nazi's gun" means the gun belongs to one Nazi. If the gun belongs to more than one Nazi, it is "Nazis' gun". I'm not aware that or could think of why it would be different with acronyms since an acronym is just a shorter placeholder for the full word or phrase. So you might wite "national socialists" or "Nazis", "national socialist's" or "Nazi's" and so on. Of course technically speaking a Nazi is a "Nationalsozialist" and in German the plural would be "Nationalsozialisten" while the genitive would be "Nationalsozialisten".
Of course with the article it makes more sense: plural: "die Nationalsozialisten", genitive: "des Nationalsozialisten".
I won't blame you for using the plural and genitive of the English word though.

Note 2. If you have correctly read my point but miss-identified my my irony as sarcasm then perhaps we have struck upon the precise boundary between wry British irony and dry German Sarcasm. Might we call it the "Husar-Philippus Demarcation Point"? Perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize is due to us in the future for this contribution to international harmony and understanding?

It's late and I can't decide whether irony and sarcasm are different enough to warrant that, but we should accept the prize.

[Gilrandir]

Really? Warrior ethics?

It was not MY claim:

Bravery has traditionally been associated with the warrior ethos. At what time in history has it been considered reasonable for a warrior to target victims such as these?

You somehow didn't respond to this statement by Pannonian, but react to my reminding the initial premise (not neccessarily accurate) of the discussion. So address the claim-maker. Yet it doesn't cancel what I said about Hitler's position (as one not of a warrior) in WWII.

Although, in Pannonian's defense, being accepted as a code doesn't mean being always followed. Like doctors take Hippocratic oath, but one can find plethora of examples when they break it. The same of knighthood principles. All of the codes are more like a paragon to look up to.

I'm not aware that or could think of why it would be different with acronyms since an acronym is just a shorter placeholder for the full word or phrase. So you might wite "national socialists" or "Nazis", "national socialist's" or "Nazi's" and so on.

You are both wrong. "Nazi" is not an acronym, it is a clipping (abbreviation).

An acronym is an abbreviation of several words in such a way that the abbreviation itself forms a pronounceable word.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/acronym

[Husar]

It was not MY claim:


You somehow didn't respond to this statement by Pannonian, but react to my reminding the initial premise (not neccessarily accurate) of the discussion. So address the claim-maker. Yet it doesn't cancel what I said about Hitler's position (as one not of a warrior) in WWII.

Although, in Pannonian's defense, being accepted as a code doesn't mean being always followed. Like doctors take Hippocratic oath, but one can find plethora of examples when they break it. The same of knighthood principles. All of the codes are more like a paragon to look up to.

I know it wasn't your claim, I already replied to it in a previous post, so you're wrong about me not responding to his statement.
Your reminder came without a critical thought apparently and I had not previously brought up any hard evidence against it. I replied to your bringing it up again to kill it with fire before anyone would seriously consider it again now that you brought it up again. Don't put wrong arguments into focus again uncritically if you don't want me to strike them down right away.

As for the exception proving the rule, maybe you missed the part where I posted many very striking examples that would make it hard to call them all exceptions. When entire armies slaughter entire cities, you have to explain to me how that is a warrior making an exception to the rule. Is the warrior ethics code written down anywhere anyway? Do warriors sign it or swear an oath to it worldwide? If not, then it is merely a code by implication and with so many examples against it, I would wonder why someone would imply it in the first place. I would say it's a romanticizing of warriors for the purpose of a political argument.

You are both wrong. "Nazi" is not an acronym, it is a clipping (abbreviation).

An acronym is an abbreviation of several words in such a way that the abbreviation itself forms a pronounceable word.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/acronym

Yes, in my defense, it was late, I was tired, and I had a feeling you would come and correct any leftover mistakes (and I did say "wordor phrase).

[Gilrandir]

I know it wasn't your claim, I already replied to it in a previous post, so you're wrong about me not responding to his statement.

My bad. And yours as well. Do you expect anyone to pay attention to the text after the initial word in such a big font?

As for the exception proving the rule, maybe you missed the part where I posted many very striking examples that would make it hard to call them all exceptions. When entire armies slaughter entire cities, you have to explain to me how that is a warrior making an exception to the rule.

If you look at my post again, you would see I NEVER used the word "exception". I said "the code isn't always followed". To put it in other words, cases of breaking it are quite numerous. They can in no way be qualified as an exception, but rather a sad practice.

Is the warrior ethics code written down anywhere anyway? Do warriors sign it or swear an oath to it worldwide? If not, then it is merely a code by implication and with so many examples against it, I would wonder why someone would imply it in the first place. I would say it's a romanticizing of warriors for the purpose of a political argument.

I agree. But I have an impression (perhaps a romantic one too) that in modern world oaths (written or unwritten, sworn or conventionally recognized) weigh less than they used to be. Just the words to be disregarded or forsworn (the pun intended) at a propitious moment. The same about treaties and agreements.

Yes, in my defense, it was late, I was tired, and I had a feeling you would come and correct any leftover mistakes (and I did say "wordor phrase).

Have you forgotten the Backroom code never to post tired, God forbid late?

[Husar]

My bad. And yours as well. Do you expect anyone to pay attention to the text after the initial word in such a big font?:

Yes, and also, yes...

If you look at my post again, you would see I NEVER used the word "exception". I said "the code isn't always followed". To put it in other words, cases of breaking it are quite numerous. They can in no way be qualified as an exception, but rather a sad practice.

I went one step beyond what you said, in that if there is a code, then these cases would have to be exceptions. I wasn't saying you said that, I commented on the logical conclusion of what you said "in Pannonian's defense".
The difference is that the knighthood ideals and the Hippocratic oath are written down and the members of the relevant organizations claim to adhere to them. I've never seen a warrior cite some well-known warrior code of ethics or claim to adhere to one. So if there were such a code, like the "honor among thieves", it would have to show through it being practiced in an overwhelming number of cases, as though it were one of the essences of the "warrior trade". I don't think that is the case (and you seem to agree there), so there is no such code.

I agree. But I have an impression (perhaps a romantic one too) that in modern world oaths (written or unwritten, sworn or conventionally recognized) weigh less than they used to be. Just the words to be disregarded or forsworn (the pun intended) at a propitious moment. The same about treaties and agreements.

This might be correct, but we have a saying here that goes: "Worte sind Schall und Rauch." - "Words are sound and smoke."
Implying that things can easily be said and there is no inherent persistence.

Have you forgotten the Backroom code never to post tired, God forbid late?

It is only implied through practice, so I'm trying to break it out of existence!

[Gilrandir]

The difference is that the knighthood ideals and the Hippocratic oath are written down and the members of the relevant organizations claim to adhere to them. I've never seen a warrior cite some well-known warrior code of ethics or claim to adhere to one.

I may be mistaken, but what Pannonian meant was rather close to the knighthood oath:

Be loyal of hand and of mouth, seeking to serve every man as best ye may.
Seek ye the fellowship of good men, hearken unto their words and remember them.
Be humble and courteous wherever thou goest, not talking much, neither being dumb altogether.
Allow no women or child to suffer by thy default, so that if ye may lift thy hand to assist one, do so. If thou must draw thy sword to defend them, do so unto thy own death.
If thou come into fellowship with boys or men who speak in a disrespectful manner of any women or maiden, let them know in gracious words that this displeases thou and thy Lord, then depart their company forthwith.
Thou art to defend and protect those who seek to worship in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and promote faith in Him throughout this earth He has made.

http://www.knightforhire.com/oath_of_the_knight.htm

So, loosely speaking, it can be thought to be ETHICALLY binding all warriors. But of course they never took it. Though the society presumes they should abide by it.