is it alright to say the the german army didnt do anything wrong in WW2 because they were following orders?

Question

is it alright to say that they did nothin wrong because they followed hitlers orders
now the other part of my question if not why is it alright for america or the american army to get of the hook while killing innocent civilians in iraq now some are not doing it deliberatly while other are to doing it while attempting trying to secure an area just after bombs have gone of killing anything that moves i mean anything

hitler himself knew there was no final victory as he had anticipated so him defeating britain wouldnt change the world history today his country was well out of resources and supplies the manpowers was vanishing the reserves were declining they were on economy mode the scientists getting the best of everything that why they were making the worlds first jets and rockets at the end of the war

i myself am thinking of joining RAAF but i dont believe in wars that have no meaning or are the ones being fought for an idiots mistake decades ago or because something like 9/11 had come up and u decided to seize the opportunity to get down a dictator for his anti US policy or because he sold oil in euros or because he killed innocent people when u were a kid
the korean war or WW2 were something else it started out as sheer political madness with germany and brits showing of their big guns and getting tough on each other but in the end it was fought to end the whole bloody conflict to give the aggressors a hard pounding to disarm them and restore peace to others who ask so many question about suicide bombers pause and rewind go back in time read about the history in detail and u will find out this whole thing started during the cold war and because of the cold war

Answer 1

Well, there is actually legal precedent that says this is NOT a valid defense. Here is a quote from a Wiki article:

"The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was 'only following orders' ('Befehl ist Befehl') and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.

Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, 'defense of superior orders' is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty.

'The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.'"

The full article is below.

Should the Iraq Invasion brought about by the United States ever be tried in an international court setting, this defense would most definitely NOT be accepted, as the US didn't accept this of the Germans during the Nuremberg Trials!

Hope this answers your question!

Answer 2

The argument they were "just following orders" fell apart when it was proved that nothing happened to them if they disobeyed certain orders.

For example, some German soldiers could not handle work at the death camps. They asked to be relieved of duty and transferred elsewhere. Every single time, they got their request and NO actions were taken against them.

There was not one document (the Germans were nuts for documents) presented proving that if a German soldier refused orders related to the Holocaust or death camps they were punished in any manner.

There were however, several well known incidents where the German people stood up to Hitler and made Hitler back down.

One was the early euthanasia program directed at mentally handicapped children. When the German people found out, they protested, forcing Hitler to stop the program.

Another was when near the end of the war, they rounded up the Jewish husbands of German women. The women protested and got their husbands back, saving them from the death camps.

It would have been an entirely different story if there was any proof a German soldier would be executed if he refused orders involving the crimes against humanity.

Answer 3

I'm happy to announce, many of (our)servicemen have challenged our invasion in Iraq. Do a little reading. I think, there has been a lot of Iraqi's killing Iraqi's, that's called civil war. It happened in America a little while ago.
That's why we need to leave Iraq. You don't get in between a brother's argument without paying a price, we did, we're paying the price. It's been time to get out, a while back. When they get tired of killing each other is the time to intervene and help. That is probably still a couple of years or more down the road. Our casualties are insult to injury of 9/11. Our enemies appear to not be getting weaker with our involvement, but stronger. The new direction should be survival of a nation that has unity and (............many more things) that needs help. Not an open invitation to bare-knuckle boxing.

Answer 4

omg, Why did the Germans turn murderous and begin killing their neighbors in WWll? Why did the Japanese turn murderous and begin killing all their neighbors in WWll? Why did Saddam turn murderous and begin killing his neighbors in Kuwait? Then after getting pushed back and beaten by our standards, why did Saddam begin building the Iraq military back up again? To the forth largest army with 5000 tanks. And ballistic OFFENSIVE missiles? Why are the clerics in Iraq not suicide bombers? Why are the Shias so irate against the Sunni's. Since America pays the Iraqi's for their oil, why are they mad at the Americans? Why are the leaders(Saddam) hogging all that money for themselves? Why were the Shia's not given a fair share of all that oil money? Why don't the terrorists blowup their thieving leaders? When a nations people turn murderous and are brainwashed to kill, the only way to bring them to their senses is a war.

Answer 5

No it is not. That arguement has been presented in various court maritals and the judgement in Nuermberg. Each individual soldier should follow orders, but only when the order is a valid one. In fact it is a soldier's duty to disobey unlawful orders. Massacring Jewish people would be one of those unlawful orders that MUST be disobeyed or else whoever did the killing will be charged with war crimes. The same thing applies to the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice)

Answer 6

To be in the Military of any country is not a license to kill because your told to. What if police men took that attitude? I am authorized to kill so I can shoot someone at any time.

The nature of war is not noble, EVER, war is evil unleashed. Taking someones life because they are a soldier that tries to take yours is understandable. What killing someone does on a personal level is a numbing experience. Hate and anger cause needless killings in war and if proved military people should be held accountable for murder.

That is a hard thing to say because I believe in the current war they are being FORCED to serve multiple combat tours. Your question is a VERY good one and hard to answer. Men if we are to have any hope of surviving have to hold some stand of humanity in them when they are doing inhuman things. I don't know how that can be but it does happen.

Answer 7

All things considered and if you really study hard, you will realise we were that close to being under a Hitler-ruled regime. The entire world for that matter. If they were any faster introducing the world's first airplane propelled by rocket fuel in the beginning of the war instead of toward the end of the war, we might be reading different history books by now...
Carelessness and greed cost him the war

Answer 8

Well there is following orders and theres following orders.

Theres a big difference between being reticent about orders and enthuasiastically following orders,
Its been said that minor officials in the third reich were one of the worst aspects of the nazi regime,

An order would come down from the top,the man who received the order would with vigour pass it down the chain of command to his subordinate,that subordinate would pass it down to his subordinate and so on,all the while the orders were getting more vigourous,
The reason given for this was that officials eager for promotion and recognition HAD to be seen to be efficiant at their work,
Pretty tough break for anyone who would get in their way.

As for the americans,its hardly the same,individual offenders should be punished severly because they bring the whole american military and government into disrepute,
Its not fair to expect native people to support american troops when all they hear is stories of abuse etc.
.

Answer 9

That answer didn't work at Nuremberg, at Me lai in Vietnam, in the '91 gulf war, and it won't work today. As a matter of fact, we go out of our way to put our soldiers in prison for even thinking it's all right to kill an enemy who is screaming in pain with his guts hanging out. So no it's not all right to say the German army didn't do anything wrong by following orders. They knew it as well. That's why they went to the gassing and cremating of Jews. The suicide rate among the soldiers were unacceptable when they were shooting them and burying them in mass graves.

Answer 10

first just remember when you enlist in the military , you swear a oath that you will protect this country against all enemy's even your own mother, that is why our founding fathers were against a all volunteer army where the men are professional soldiers , as they have taken a oath to defend this country AGAINST ALL ENEMY'S. men who are drafted don't take this oath, so that is the best reason for not having a all volunteer army, but, that our gov desperately wants, as they can control us with this type of army , even against our bill of rights where it specifiably states FEDERAL FORCES WILL NEVER BE USED AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULACE, yet Lincoln did it Eisenhower did it , Kennedy did it, do you expect these to be any different???

some one had better go back and check his law, as in the U,S, CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE states any one who refuses a direct order from his superiors can be executed on the spot if this jeopardizes our country or men if not carried out, that is why men didn't refuse to attack a hill in Korea when they knew they would die in the process, (heartbreak ridge)doe's any one remember the polish kid from N,Y, who didn't believe in killing was executed because he refused to kill, they even made a movie of it," firing squad" no enlisted personnel were executed in Germany for following orders only the officers who gave the order.