NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd say that the north African theatre of ww2 is a good showcase of "good conduct", both sides acted very professionally and in many areas quite chivalrously, be it in the treatment of POWs or not shelling hostile convoys carrying mostly wounded men. The "good conduct" didn't compromise either sides operating abilities and combat was still brutally efficient, just not excessively so, as it was on the eastern front for example

Thats because both were civilized Western Europeans.

Not sure the Nazis technically count as "civilised".
You can have "cultured".

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Thats because both were civilized Western Europeans.

Not sure the Nazis technically count as "civilised".
You can have "cultured".

If your definition of culture consists entirely of "terrifying-looking buildings and intensely homoerotic propaganda movies".

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

I'd say that the north African theatre of ww2 is a good showcase of "good conduct", both sides acted very professionally and in many areas quite chivalrously, be it in the treatment of POWs or not shelling hostile convoys carrying mostly wounded men. The "good conduct" didn't compromise either sides operating abilities and combat was still brutally efficient, just not excessively so, as it was on the eastern front for example

But that phase of the war didn't end with a "fair" resolution.
It ended with Monty and Patton ganging up and beating the living shit out of Rommel and the Italians until they couldn't fight anymore.
Hence my point.[/quote]
So if "ganging up" on the enemy in unchivilrous? Chivalry isn't fairness, if it was it would involve treating women like you treat men instead of better. Chivalry is about not being a dick, hence not shelling hospitals or starving POWs.

[Padnak]

I didn't say it was fair, I said it was "decent", as in neither side used means that were more excessive then necessary

[Imperializt Russia]

Not sure the Nazis technically count as "civilised".
You can have "cultured".

If your definition of culture consists entirely of "terrifying-looking buildings and intensely homoerotic propaganda movies".

Germany was a well-cultured nation in the early 20th century, with the exception of modern art by the time of Hitler's rise to power.

[The Akasha Colony]

Thats because both were civilized Western Europeans.

Not sure the Nazis technically count as "civilised".
You can have "cultured".

They were certainly civilized. They didn't cease being civilized simply because they embarked on a campaign of mass-murder, they are hardly the only civilization throughout the vast stretch of history to do it.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

So if "ganging up" on the enemy in unchivilrous?

I never mentioned "chivalry" (which was a joke back in the Middle Ages, too).
And judging from Themiclesia's definition, giving your anything less than a 50/50 shot at victory at all times is intensely dishonorable.

Chivalry isn't fairness, if it was it would involve treating women like you treat men instead of better. Chivalry is about not being a dick, hence not shelling hospitals or starving POWs.

HENCE WHY I NEVER MENTIONED CHIVALRY.

If your definition of culture consists entirely of "terrifying-looking buildings and intensely homoerotic propaganda movies".

Germany was a well-cultured nation in the early 20th century, with the exception of modern art by the time of Hitler's rise to power.

I'm talking about Nazi culture, here.

Not sure the Nazis technically count as "civilised".
You can have "cultured".

They were certainly civilized. They didn't cease being civilized simply because they embarked on a campaign of mass-murder, they are hardly the only civilization throughout the vast stretch of history to do it.

As a society? I think they did.
Many countries have killed lots of their own people. However, I can hardly think of any that went about it with the calculated, deliberated intent that the Germans did.

[Themiclesia]

It may be true, what you say, but there are numerous exceptions, especially prominently remembered in Chinese history --

An archer shoots and misses, and is ready to shoot a second arrow. The opposing archer says, "I haven't even shot yet. It is shameful for you to shoot twice before I get to shoot." The first then permits the latter to shoot, and dies from this shot.

The Duke Hsiang of the state of Sung told his soldiers, "Do not capture old men, and do not hurt those already injured." Consequently, he lost the battle, but then was remembered with admiration for the next two millennia.

And these exceptions are the reason why "good conduct" was never common.

It's a willingness to believe that there's more to the world than states and victory.

And what in the end did Duke Xiang of Song gain, or the allegorical first archer? Did his fame and respect forestall the annexation of Song by the eventually victorious Qin? Mao had some rather choice words to describe the actions of his "respected" forebear.

He died for what believed for, which is what Confucius considers a complete life without regret.

I'm willing to guess there are a lot of people in the duke's army who in hindsight might've wanted to see their families again. Had he attacked at the river, his opponent would have likely retreated fairly quickly in disorganization, reducing casualties on both sides compared to fighting a large, drawn-out battle with the full force of both armies. And if the first archer had nocked and fired his second shot, the outcome also would have been the same: one dead man either way.

This is what his ministers said to the duke, but the duke stood for his beliefs. Now it so happens that the enemy is actually much more powerful than the duke had anticipated (in this case the viscount of Chu), but it could have been different.

Indeed, modern armies are far more careful about their casualties and the "morality" of their actions than in the past. It used to be considered justified to wage a war with thousands of casualties over religion, to slaughter villages and towns wholesale for "apostasy." Or even for a noble's honor, or his perceived claim to a throne or additional title. It used to be expected that a victorious army would sack a city, enslave the men, rape the women, and salt the fields. Carthage "stands" as a monument to Roman "virtuousness."

I'll concede that these may not be literally true, or are abstractions of more complicated situations (such as hearing each other from two ends of an arrow's range).

Yeah, no kidding.

But the soldiers did obey the orders.

Probably because if they didn't, they'd be punished in a way you'd find pretty arbitrary and uncivilized, ironically enough.

Yes, but rulers were arbitrary then, so perhaps uncivilized, but not arbitrary.

More to the story was regard for fairness.

Fairness in war gets you and your comrades killed, as your archer story proved for me. No participant in armed conflict ever ended that conflict by being fair. they ended it by overwhelming their enemy with their overpowering strength as quickly and effectively as possible. Period.
That's what ends war, and prevents the exact kind of pointless wastage of life that "fairness on the battlefield" results in.

In which case casualty also result, and there no way of telling that they victorious state (in this case Chu) would in any way treat the defeated Sung state better than it has.

The duke refused to attack the enemy as they were crossing the river, and again when the battle formation was not quite ready, but only engaged when the enemy was ready.

How many of his own men do you think died in an extremely pointless and avoidable way because this "duke" had a hard-on for "fairness"? How many of his men who died in that battle would've agreed that their deaths were worth letting the enemy have a "fair" shot at them? How many extra widows did that create? how many extra orphans did "fairness" result in, there? A hundred? A thousand? Is all that extra loss, bloodshed, and grief worth being "fair"?
Unfairness in war ends war quickly and with a minimum of bloodshed.

If the enemy directly and immediately surrenders, with the result that no battle occurs, then perhaps yes. I refer to a spirit that being fair is more important than the outcome of the battle.

EDIT: this quoting thing is a disaster

[Imperializt Russia]

Not sure the Nazis technically count as "civilised".
You can have "cultured".

They were certainly civilized. They didn't cease being civilized simply because they embarked on a campaign of mass-murder, they are hardly the only civilization throughout the vast stretch of history to do it.

"Civilised" has a lot of connotations with conduct and sometimes ends up with "barbarism" as an antonym. In which case, neither are really referring to the original context of "civilisations" versus "barbarian society". Or something.

The conduct the Nazis engaged in, I will happily level as "barbarism". The conduct they fostered in other countries, through the SS and slightly indirectly the Einsatzgruppen somehow took them to an even lower level.

[Padnak]

In other news, the military realism thread has taken to debating the ethics of modern combat, more on this story at six

[Themiclesia]

They were certainly civilized. They didn't cease being civilized simply because they embarked on a campaign of mass-murder, they are hardly the only civilization throughout the vast stretch of history to do it.

"Civilised" has a lot of connotations with conduct and sometimes ends up with "barbarism" as an antonym. In which case, neither are really referring to the original context of "civilisations" versus "barbarian society". Or something.

The conduct the Nazis engaged in, I will happily level as "barbarism". The conduct they fostered in other countries, through the SS and slightly indirectly the Einsatzgruppen somehow took them to an even lower level.

If it's barbaric to you, than it certainly is to me.

[Imperializt Russia]

"Civilised" has a lot of connotations with conduct and sometimes ends up with "barbarism" as an antonym. In which case, neither are really referring to the original context of "civilisations" versus "barbarian society". Or something.

The conduct the Nazis engaged in, I will happily level as "barbarism". The conduct they fostered in other countries, through the SS and slightly indirectly the Einsatzgruppen somehow took them to an even lower level.

If it's barbaric to you, than it certainly is to me.

I don't think there's any reasonable way the conduct of the Nazis can be considered anything but barbaric.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

He died for what believed for, which is what Confucius considers a complete life without regret.

Easy for Confucius to say, the prick.

This is what his ministers said to the duke, but the duke stood for his beliefs.

Great for him! Hope the sound of crickets at night don't sound to him like a the whispering ghosts of his soldiers accusing him of getting them killed for nothing! I know they would for me!

Now it so happens that the enemy is actually much more powerful than the duke had anticipated (in this case the viscount of Chu), but it could have been different.

Yeah, if he hadn't been an idiot.

Indeed, modern armies are far more careful about their casualties and the "morality" of their actions than in the past. It used to be considered justified to wage a war with thousands of casualties over religion, to slaughter villages and towns wholesale for "apostasy." Or even for a noble's honor, or his perceived claim to a throne or additional title. It used to be expected that a victorious army would sack a city, enslave the men, rape the women, and salt the fields. Carthage "stands" as a monument to Roman "virtuousness."

Maybe Rome took "ending the war" to a bit of an extreme, but hey - they never had to worry about Carthage again. No more war on that front!

But the soldiers did obey the orders.

Probably because if they didn't, they'd be punished in a way you'd find pretty arbitrary and uncivilized, ironically enough.[/quote]
Yes, but rulers were arbitrary then, so perhaps uncivilized, but not arbitrary.
[/quote]
So, they were arbitrary, which makes them not arbitrary?
Jesus Christ.

In which case casualty also result,

War is about dying. You can die, or your enemy can die. Pick one.
Those are the only options available.

and there no way of telling that they victorious state (in this case Chu) would in any way treat the defeated Sung state better than it has.

...How is that relevant? I thought we were discussing fairness in war here, not the relative merits of forgotten Chinese city-states.

If the enemy directly and immediately surrenders, with the result that no battle occurs, then perhaps yes.

They won't! But that doesn't matter, for the battle will be won by the side that didn't play fair, meaning an end to the war. Everyone goes home sooner!

I refer to a spirit that being fair is more important than the outcome of the battle.

So, you think being fair is more important than saving lives?
Or, you know, ending the conflict so no more people die?
Jesus, you would not be a popular general. I would NOT want to be one of your soldiers, nor would anyone else. It's damn good nobody actually subscribes to that particular belief.
Also, you didn't answer any of my questions.

[Tule]

If it's barbaric to you, than it certainly is to me.

I don't think there's any reasonable way the conduct of the Nazis can be considered anything but barbaric.

I don't think the word barbaric is appropriate, it gives the impression that their atrocities were unsophisticated and primitive.

The Nazis extensively researched, organized, developed, commercialized and industrialized the act of committing genocide.

It was... abominable. It is the lowest, most horrid thing humans have ever done.

[San-Silvacian]

Thats because both were civilized Western Europeans.

Italy and Germany are not European. They're African and Asiatic, respectively.

It was still two good civilized white men fighting in a place filled with browns.

[Glorious ReBublic of Alevstan]

Italy and Germany are not European. They're African and Asiatic, respectively.

It was still two good civilized white men fighting in a place filled with browns.

That could easily be perceived as racist.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Italy and Germany are not European. They're African and Asiatic, respectively.

It was still two good civilized white men fighting in a place filled with browns.

Oh, Christ.

[Gallia-]

Italy and Germany are not European. They're African and Asiatic, respectively.

It was still two good civilized white men fighting in a place filled with browns.

Yeah, but America and Britain are basically the same.

[The Akasha Colony]

"Civilised" has a lot of connotations with conduct and sometimes ends up with "barbarism" as an antonym. In which case, neither are really referring to the original context of "civilisations" versus "barbarian society". Or something.

The conduct the Nazis engaged in, I will happily level as "barbarism". The conduct they fostered in other countries, through the SS and slightly indirectly the Einsatzgruppen somehow took them to an even lower level.

But does an entire society stop being civilized for the actions of only a minority? Is every Wehrmacht soldier a war criminal because some committed war crimes? Is every German civilian a war criminal because of this?

Do barbarous acts in certain spheres (war) negate the undoubted civilization of... everything else?

The Germans went about it with ruthless precision, compared to previous attempts at ethnic cleansing. It was not an unordered, incoherent mob impulse. It had very direct, very clear aims, and a plan to achieve those aims as efficiently as possible. That certainly wasn't the work of an uncivilized state.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

"Civilised" has a lot of connotations with conduct and sometimes ends up with "barbarism" as an antonym. In which case, neither are really referring to the original context of "civilisations" versus "barbarian society". Or something.

The conduct the Nazis engaged in, I will happily level as "barbarism". The conduct they fostered in other countries, through the SS and slightly indirectly the Einsatzgruppen somehow took them to an even lower level.

But does an entire society stop being civilized for the actions of only a minority?

If it's a minority tacitly supported by the entire society? Absolutely.

Is every Wehrmacht soldier a war criminal because some committed war crimes? Is every German civilian a war criminal because of this?

That's not what we're debating.

Do barbarous acts in certain spheres (war) negate the undoubted civilization of... everything else?

Everything else that allowed that state to exist (IE ordinary, tax-paying, obedient German citizens and ordinary, order-following Wehrmacht soldiers)? Absolutely, if they're on that kind of scale.

The Germans went about it with ruthless precision, compared to previous attempts at ethnic cleansing. It was not an unordered, incoherent mob impulse. It had very direct, very clear aims, and a plan to achieve those aims as efficiently as possible. That certainly wasn't the work of an uncivilized state.

You have it backwards: The fact they could have done such an objectively unthinkable thing with such cold-bloodedness is the exact and uncontestable proof of barbarism.

[Themiclesia]

He died for what believed for, which is what Confucius considers a complete life without regret.

Easy for Confucius to say, the prick.

I happen to be a great admirer of Confucius and his philosophy, if you don't mind.

This is what his ministers said to the duke, but the duke stood for his beliefs.

Great for him! Hope the sound of crickets at night don't sound to him like a the whispering ghosts of his soldiers accusing him of getting them killed for nothing! I know they would for me!

He died a happy man, having suffered an injury to his thigh during the battle.

Now it so happens that the enemy is actually much more powerful than the duke had anticipated (in this case the viscount of Chu), but it could have been different.

Yeah, if he hadn't been an idiot.

I'm sure your statement reflects what some of his subjects may have said to him.

Indeed, modern armies are far more careful about their casualties and the "morality" of their actions than in the past. It used to be considered justified to wage a war with thousands of casualties over religion, to slaughter villages and towns wholesale for "apostasy." Or even for a noble's honor, or his perceived claim to a throne or additional title. It used to be expected that a victorious army would sack a city, enslave the men, rape the women, and salt the fields. Carthage "stands" as a monument to Roman "virtuousness."

Maybe Rome took "ending the war" to a bit of an extreme, but hey - they never had to worry about Carthage again. No more war on that front! [/quote]...

But the soldiers did obey the orders.

Probably because if they didn't, they'd be punished in a way you'd find pretty arbitrary and uncivilized, ironically enough.

Yes, but rulers were arbitrary then, so perhaps uncivilized, but not arbitrary.
[/quote]
So, they were arbitrary, which makes them not arbitrary? [/quote]

Arbitrary to them, not to me.

Jesus Christ.

In which case casualty also result,

War is about dying. You can die, or your enemy can die. Pick one.
Those are the only options available.

The whole thing we're talking about here is to manufacture a third choice.

and there no way of telling that they victorious state (in this case Chu) would in any way treat the defeated Sung state better than it has.

...How is that relevant? I thought we were discussing fairness in war here, not the relative merits of forgotten Chinese city-states.

If you have forgotten them, fine. I haven't. You don't need to engage in a discussion with me.

If the enemy directly and immediately surrenders, with the result that no battle occurs, then perhaps yes.

They won't! But that doesn't matter, for the battle will be won by the side that didn't play fair, meaning an end to the war. Everyone goes home sooner!

Every one of the fewer ones that have survived.

I refer to a spirit that being fair is more important than the outcome of the battle.

So, you think being fair is more important than saving lives?
Or, you know, ending the conflict so no more people die?
Jesus, you would not be a popular general. I would NOT want to be one of your soldiers, nor would anyone else. It's damn good nobody actually subscribes to that particular belief.
Also, you didn't answer any of my questions.

I'm not bound to, but I try my best. You don't have to subscribe to the Duke of Sung's beliefs. My conjecture was that the battle would have produced more casualties on Chu's side without reducing casualties on Sung's side (simply because the Chu army was poised to win by any standard). My opinion stands at that the duke had lost a battle but won a moral victory.

EDIT: quoting again a disaster.

[Themiclesia]

If it's barbaric to you, than it certainly is to me.

I don't think there's any reasonable way the conduct of the Nazis can be considered anything but barbaric.

Barbaric in my understanding means impermissible in the speaker's own culture. So, if there are any surviving believers in the Nazi dogmata, it would not be barbaric to them.

[San-Silvacian]

I don't think there's any reasonable way the conduct of the Nazis can be considered anything but barbaric.

Barbaric in my understanding means impermissible in the speaker's own culture. So, if there are any surviving believers in the Nazi dogmata, it would not be barbaric to them.

There are.

And they all live in Argentina.

That solves why the Arges still fight England so much.

"So Mr. Presidente, just what did you do before you assumed power."

"I verked at a Bakery...

A Jewish Bakery."

[Themiclesia]

Barbaric in my understanding means impermissible in the speaker's own culture. So, if there are any surviving believers in the Nazi dogmata, it would not be barbaric to them.

There are.

And they all live in Argentina.

That solves why the Arges still fight England so much.

"So Mr. Presidente, just what did you do before you assumed power."

"I verked at a Bakery...

A Jewish Bakery."

I mean serious ones, not the ones who would fly a Nazi flag to make a point.

[Padnak]

It was still two good civilized white men fighting in a place filled with browns.

That could easily be perceived as racist.

its San-Silva, he secretly hankers for the return of European imperialism...