Hello my question is at the Nuremberg Trials did'nt the Nazi

Page 1 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

mikecartwright
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 398

25 Oct 2012, 9:21 pm

Hello my question is at the Nuremberg Trials did'nt the Nazi War Criminals defend themselves by saying they were just following Orders therefor they were not Guilty of Genocide why is following orders not an excuse ? Is it because humans have freewill did the Nuremberg Trials Judges/Courts say this ? Also if low rank Soldiers commit war crimes and or genocide because their military offiers and or generals or heads of state give them these orders to commit murder can these soldiers if taken to court say they were just following orders as an excuse defense to defend themselves ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Oct 2012, 9:57 pm

The Nuremberg Trials were more a show trial than an actual trial. The laws were basically made up as they went.

What do you think would happen to people in Nazi Germany if they did not follow orders? Even without the threat of imprisonment/torture/death, people tend to follow orders by authority figures. Look up the Milgram experiment that took place in the early 60s.

Does that excuse their actions? I really don't know how I feel about that but I think it explains them.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

26 Oct 2012, 1:51 am

Well they do hold some part of the collective guilt, some restitution is in order. I'm not for punishing them but they should serve out 10 years in something like the national guard to protect and keep the peace or be some part of a peace corps that same amount of time, or something of the like. Even if you weren't part of the military, it should apply to you, especially everyone 40 or under. Those who gave orders higher up the command should be tortured and publicly hanged. If you committed war crimes that were not orders given, and are caught, you should have the same fate.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Danimal
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 268
Location: West Central Indiana

26 Oct 2012, 2:47 am

American soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. However, a soldier is not obligated to follow an illegal order from an officer. Illegal orders are orders to commit murder, torture, steal, and other such illegal acts.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

26 Oct 2012, 8:27 am

If they accepted it, no one would have been punished

Jacoby wrote:
The Nuremberg Trials were more a show trial than an actual trial. The laws were basically made up as they went.

Actually, I remember that at Yalta, Roosevelt and Churchill wanted the chief Nazi rulers shot on capture. It was Stalin who wanted a trial. And in Stalin's trials, there are no acquittals.

As a matter of fact, Andrei Vishinsky was chief prosecutor at Nuremberg and at all three Moscow Trials.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Oct 2012, 9:44 am

Jacoby wrote:
The Nuremberg Trials were more a show trial than an actual trial. The laws were basically made up as they went.

What do you think would happen to people in Nazi Germany if they did not follow orders? Even without the threat of imprisonment/torture/death, people tend to follow orders by authority figures. Look up the Milgram experiment that took place in the early 60s.

Does that excuse their actions? I really don't know how I feel about that but I think it explains them.


The Court at Nuremberg decided following orders was not a sufficient excuse.

ruveyn



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,624

26 Oct 2012, 11:20 am

There were cases such as the Einsatzgruppen where people could choose not to participate in shooting duties. We're talking about over a million people shot by people who effectively were volunteers here. Contrast this with someone like John Demjanjuk who was never left alone after his conviction for gassing people at Treblinka was overturned, they then said he was a guard at Sobibor, but even had he been so, he was a Soviet prisoner of war. The life expectancy of a Soviet prisoner of war in Nazi hands was not long at all. Had he not done what the Nazis wanted he surely would have died. They should have left him alone.



ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,151

26 Oct 2012, 11:51 am

Danimal wrote:
American soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. However, a soldier is not obligated to follow an illegal order from an officer. Illegal orders are orders to commit murder, torture, steal, and other such illegal acts.


While this sounds good in theory, its not a great position to be in if you're given an order which you believe to be illegal, because if you refuse to carry it out then at best you're looking a court-martial where you'll be second guessed and if they don't agree with you that it was illegal, you'll be suffering the consequences.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Oct 2012, 12:27 pm

If the defence of "following orders" was accepted uncritically, then it would have meant that the only person who could have been held accountable killed himself in the bunker.

Hitler was not the Nazi Jesus--dying to wash away the sins of his followers. There were countless many whose actions went beyond what was lawful, even in a time of war--most particularly those whose actions were directed against civilians.


_________________
--James


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,570
Location: Stendec

26 Oct 2012, 12:57 pm

The Nuremburg trials were held between Nov. 20, 1945 and Oct. 01, 1946. That's 66 years ago.

... a little late to drum up support for an appeal...


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


piroflip
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 352

26 Oct 2012, 1:03 pm

The victors of any war choose the rules and write the history books.
One day it will be the bully boy USA's turn.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,570
Location: Stendec

26 Oct 2012, 1:10 pm

piroflip wrote:
The victors of any war choose the rules and write the history books.
One day it will be the bully boy USA's turn.

Were it not for the "Bully Boy", most of Europe would be goose-stepping to Deutsch classes ... or the showers ...


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Oct 2012, 1:10 pm

Fnord wrote:
The Nuremburg trials were held between Nov. 20, 1945 and Oct. 01, 1946. That's 66 years ago.

... a little late to drum up support for an appeal...


The much more relevant question is how the legal principles enunciated at Nuremberg apply to soldiers and civilians engaged in combat today.

The United States has chosen to view Al Qaeda as an organization outside the laws of war, and its members as unprotected by the Geneva Conventions. All well and good. However, if these individuals are not soldiers, then what is the culpability that attaches to military personnel who are engaged in policing activities in places like Afghanistan? If these aren't soldiers in an enemy force, then the rules of war do not apply.

While in the jurisdiction of the United States, it is clear that minimal culpability attaches, unless personnel have gone beyond the scope of their lawfully issued orders. But what of a US verteran of Iraq or Afghanistan who travels to other jurisdictions whose legal systems might not recognize the legality of some of the operations?

This is a real and meaningful legal question for thousands of people, not least of whom are the officers of field rank and above. And neither is it restricted to the United States' military personnel.


_________________
--James


ZackytheAspie
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 5

28 Oct 2012, 10:19 pm

Many of the Nazis tried at Nuremberg were found "guilty by association", meaning that they did not commit the actual crime but were guilty in letting it happen.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,667
Location: KC area (born in NYC)

28 Oct 2012, 11:19 pm

The precedent established by the Nuremberg trials is that following orders is not a legal defense for war crimes. In other words, insubordination, whatever its consequences, is preferable to committing a war crime.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (full-time, tenured sociology professor)
33 domains/23 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Internet Radio: http://www.markalanfoster.com


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,281
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Oct 2012, 12:41 am

It should be remembered, not everyone on trial at Nuremberg was convicted. There were some acquittals, as there was not enough evidence, or it was found the defendants in question were innocent.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer