Nazi Germany gave the right to its SS men to kill and torture. Nazi Germany was a sovereign nation with its own laws. A crime only exist if a nation makes it a crime.
2006-10-29 17:14:39 · 12 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Do not get angry over this sensitive issue. My question is valid. Why do nations committ atrocities against their own citizens? Yes those actions by the Nazi's were sick and deplorable, anyone with a heart understand that. But not everyone have morals. The Nazi's never did nor did Saddam Hussein and his sons. Yet no nation has ever invaded to help stop the slaughter. Nations had to find other reasons. So think critically and answer the question if you wish.
2006-10-29 17:32:05 · update #1
Technically yes, Hitler made the rules and if the SS did not obey the rules, then they were the ones committing the crime. Either way, it had to be stopped. Did you also know that most countries including the U.S knew about those camps and what was going on way before we did anything. The biggest reason for fighting this war was so Hitler could not take over the world not so much killing millions of innocent people. Great question though!!!
2006-10-29 17:19:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Nazis who were tried at Nuremburg after World War II for genocide, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, conducting an unjust and aggressive war and/or mass murder, all objected to the trials as an initial matter because they were obeying the orders of their superiors. The Allies concluded that there is a universal law (which could not be based on any religious concepts because the Russians would have objected) and that war and government have to be conducted in accordance with that universal law. The Russians would have been comfortable applying the law of the victor (We won, so we get to try the losers). The other Allies, the British and Americans in particular, were concerned about setting a precedent for the proposition that nations and armies have to answer for their actions. The formation of the United Nations and the ratification of the Universal Rights of Man after the Second World War made the prosecution of people like Milosevic in Serbia easier. But he probably could have been prosecuted under the general universal law that the Nuremburg trials found to exist.
2006-10-29 17:55:33 · answer #2 · answered by mattapan26 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does it really matter if they were illegal or not? The fact is that people did horrible things to other people. That makes it wrong, regardless of whether someone decides that there is a law against it or not...
What irks me is that people are still stuck in the past. "The horrors of the Nazi concentration camps... und so weiter". As if this is the only atrocity that humans have committed against other humans? The good ol' US of A has committed its fair share of heinous actions, but no-one ever complains about those - maybe we have to wait another generation before people are no longer afraid to speak out against George Dubya?
:-)
2006-10-29 17:44:43 · answer #3 · answered by Extemporaneous 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is also international law, such as the Geneva Accords. The Bush Regime has also violated international accords, which George W. has not only withdrawn U.S. membership from, but also threatened to withhold all financial and military aid from any country that signed. This was in the first months of his presidency, well before 9/11.
2006-10-29 17:28:34 · answer #4 · answered by beast 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't a matter of legality, but simple right and wrong. When the laws are wrong, the people must resist and change the laws.
Many German citizens fought the Nazis... many Nazis even tried to take Hitler's life, as even THEY foresaw that Hitler would destroy their beloved country. Hitler had many enemies, not only among his countrymen, but even those who shared his party.
It was legal in America, in the 50's, to make black people sit at the back of the bus and for a black woman to have to give up her seat at the back of the bus for a white man. But it was wrong. And Rosa Parks, a meek woman in her 40's, resisted that law, and changed the country.
Morals place higher than laws...
2006-10-29 17:24:23 · answer #5 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the problem is that germany didn't stick to this within it's own borders. it did invade other countries.. those that did not observe the slaughter of human life as being legal. you can look to russia during the stalin years at all the slaughter that took place there.. and no one lifted a finger to help those poor folks..and why does it have to be law when it comes to rape, murder and torture.....it's a crime against humanity.. which should'nt need a written mandate.. common sense.. put yourself in their place and then, ask that question to yourself..
2006-10-29 17:20:59 · answer #6 · answered by steinwald 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ideally law and ethics are the same. But our world is not ideal. A written rule is not legal if it is not moral. Example, the British king owned North America, but the colonists decided that wasn't quite legal and wrote a declaration. Check that document for pointers of legality and morality.
2006-10-29 17:58:06 · answer #7 · answered by Alex G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a crime against humanity which is not subject to any border nor the laws of any nation..
2006-10-29 17:36:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which is exactly why constitutional laws in America were abolished by the Bush Administration. Now his government can conduct the same kinds of actions against people that the Nazi's did.
2006-10-29 17:18:30 · answer #9 · answered by Reba K 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
They weren't illegal...as you stated there was no law, and with the absence of law, there can be no illegality. I don't believe that's the proper question to ask, however. What was done was immoral, and sickening.
2006-10-29 17:18:32 · answer #10 · answered by gradflutes 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋