Actually, according to Tarantino, Aldo Raine spent years fighting the Klan back home. That’s a big reason he hates the Nazis so much.
You have no evidence Raine is a racist, other than his “hick” accent.
Ok. And the Nazi regime would be considered a righteous society?
To Nazis it was.
If that was so, why did they keep the Final Solution secret? If it was so righteous, and even they thought so, they would be broadcasting to all and sundry how righteous they were exterminating whole peoples.
Because they knew it was not righteous to their enemies.
You seem to believe all words have a single, ironclad definition that should be applied across all possible applications of said word. That’s not how English works. Words can have multiple meanings, and many definitions, such as those of “honor” and “righteous,” are relative.
You seem to believe that because someone thinks they are “honorable” that means they are.
I don’t believe that “throwing babies into an incinerator” can be described as honorable no matter what definition you are using.
You don’t know what the word “relative” means, do you?
Someone who is related to you?
Edited to add: I don’t know what point you are making. I know what “relative” means. Are you telling me there exists situations that could arise whereby throwing living babies into an incinerator could somehow be considered “honorable”?
That’s because you’re not a Nazi. If you were, then that would be perfect acceptable.
Because, again, it’s relative.
There are a lot of things that seem acceptable to those that are doing it. Doesn’t make those things honorable.
Do you eat beef? There’s about several hundred million Hindus in India that think you’re a monster for it. I’m certain you’ve never lost a single moment of sleep over it, because you have different values and beliefs than they do.
It’s possible for people to disagree without anyone being wrong.
I’m not saying what the Nazis did was right, but that’s a funny thing about being human: almost no one ever acts out of pure malice. Twisted as their reasons may have been, the Nazis genuinely believed they were making the world a better place. They were doing what they believed was best for themselves and their people. Like it or not, and you clearly don’t, there IS a certain twisted honor in that.
You know what, I’m trying to be less of a dick, and this was probably a bit aggressive for this thread, so I apologize for this.
But I would never say eating beef was “honorable”
I project no feelings similar to “liking it”. I just disagree that there is any sort of honor to it. That’s why I asked for people’s definition of “honor” so I can understand where those posters are coming from. “He moves effortlessly and comfortably in aristocratic circles” is not a trait I would use to bolster my opinion that someone is “honorable”
I took no offense. You seem to be a cool person, so I’ll allow it 
No one says Landa says killing Jews is honorable either. This has more to do with a personal code of conduct. Landa respected Raine as an equal. He thought that Raine would keep his deals because Landa kept his. And while they were opponents, Landa clearly had respect for Raine and badly wanted that respect returned.
Landa’s is likely a sociopath. He’s indifferent to the moral nature of his job. He just strives to be the best at it. If he lived in a different society, he’d be hunting some other group and it wouldn’t really matter to him either. But he has no desire to be exceedingly cruel or malicious either. He does the minimum harm that the job requires. He wants to dominate people, to beat them, to be the best. But it’s not vindictive. He doesn’t want to harm a defeated foe.
But he very much cares about his own personal code of honor. I think that if the Nazis had punished someone who he promised protection, like LaPeditte, he would be willing to risk his life and career to prevent that.
Landa is far from a cartoon villain. He’s a fully realized character with strength and flaws.
That’s the dichotomy that you’re not seeing. Landa was honorable by his own code and by the standards of most societies where keeping your word is of utmost importance. But he did evil. Raine was
dishonorable by the standards of most societies, but he was ultimately working for the good guys.
The movie uses this to try to make us uncomfortable and make its think about the nature of honor vs goodness. It’s actually a well crafted subtext that’s important to the movie.
It’s intended to make you think past simplistic notion of honor and good and evil. Your rigid, somewhat simple ideas about those things I think blinds you to this subtext. So you interpret that theme incorrectly.
How can you call a guy honorable when you admit that his actions are not honorable? I don’t understand that.
Perhaps this is our main disagreement. He would in no way, in any shape or form, risk his life to save a Jew or person that was trying to save Jews, that the “higher ups” had deemed “killable”
This movie seems to make you think that the Nazis were just following a code of honor that isn’t acceptable to the rest of world.
I’m just not getting your defense of their actions (in this movie) because they “honored their word”
Related story, there are many, many movies that the bad guy has a good guy isolated in a cave, or remote cabin, or something similar, and then asks the good guy “join me, or die right here!” and the good guy refuses. To me, the good guy should just lie and say “OK, I’ll join you” and then leave and then work to capture the bad guy.
It seems to me that you think that would be dishonorable - lying to a bad guy. I’m just not seeing it.
He was also the weatherman on the first season of the Jim Jefferies Show, which I didn’t think was the strongest bit at the time. But now watching it back all stitched together into a 6 minute youtube video, I’m cracking up.
I don’t know; I personally think of the concept of honor as originating in the middle ages, with knights and jousts and courtly love. I’m certain it predates then, but for me, that’s what I think of as the birthplace of honor.
In addition to honor, the other thing I most associate with knights and jousts and courtly love is murdering people on the basis of their religion. Not just burning your own heretics at the stake, but also spreading the murder far and wide with the crusades.
That’s because you’re looking at the outcomes, and not the methodology.
Let’s try another example:
Consider the role of a police detective in western society. They investigate crime, try to determine who is guilty, and arrest the accused. Police detectives are expected to follow a code of conduct. (It’s even written down most of the time.)
Consider a cop who follows this code, and finally catches the killer. Honorable. (FBI agent Clarise Starling)
Compare them to someone who breaks the code (law), violates rules of evidence, and beats confessions out of witnesses. (Dirty Harry) The second cop is considered not to be honorable. Effective, but not honorable.
Interestingly, both were popular movie characters.
No one is defending the actions of Nazis.
Examples of honor and the honorless can be found in the Iliad: Achilles desecration of Hector’s corpse was not honorable.
Those men were absolutely traitors, as far as Britain was concerned. They’re an interesting case.
With due respect, I don’t think you understand what the word “honor” actually means. You and manson1972 are repeatedly making the error of conflating “honor” with “Good, righteous.” That isn’t what it means in this context. Honor can be upheld in the service of dreadful evil.
Landa slips at the end, though - ultimately, he too chooses to betray his country to his own benefit, the same offense he killed von Hammersmark for. And he finally gets his comeuppance for it.