I bet you there are many WN's who agree with my views

They're not a monolith that supports Hitler, they have diverse opinions on him.

@ETBrooD you're a WN?

No

Aight

There's honor in war when being fair to an extent

So there is no honor in war then

There's honor in fairness

Honor is literally etiquette in fighting

When you say there's honor in fairness, you sound like a commie

wut

Splain

~~No~~ for which one?

You said there's honor in being fair in war, but then you said seeing honor in fairness makes you a commie

Being fair in war comes down to soldier v soldier

Typically

Not really, soldiers have orders

The generals are the ones who need to worry about fairness, the soldiers have no responsibility unless a higher order demands them to disobey

You're thinking too much about modern warfare which is too complex and makes analogies complex

I'm not thinking about modern warfare no

Think medieval or before
Ok, fine

Think of a small-scale battle

I think of any battle

Sure

Let's say a 1v1 happens

No guns

Just melee combat

These soldiers have the idea of 'honorable combat' drilled into their heads

What will they do?

Do they have orders to kill one another?

It is a battle in which the two armies are facing one another

Yes

Then they don't need to worry about honor at that point, unless the situation changes and thus different orders come into play

1v1: the soldiers are alone - they will fight
1v1: there is a retreating soldier and a soldier in pursuit - the soldier in pursuit may have no intention of letting the soldier go, due to orders being such, but he has the idea of honorable combat. What will happen?

That's still the same situation

Retreat or not

If the order is to kill, then it is to kill

Retreat or not

Surrender however would be different

So what I'm getting is that you don't know what honorable combat is in the first place, romanticized or how it was historically

wut