4 ms·

Hi, what is that debate about Nuremberg? Did it allow to escape responsibility ? Genuinely interested.

by tajen 9y ago

MBCook 9y ago
Nurenberg is where they held the trials for Nazis after World War II. Many of them claimed that they were only following orders, which quickly became known as the “Nuremberg defense”. I honestly don’t know to what degree it worked. It’s obviously quite clear that it’s seen as a cowards way out; that people should have done the right thing in spite of orders.
- watwut 9y ago
  It did not worked. And big names were not just following orders anyway. But it was not just covardly way out. The prewar German culture really thought that way. It was heavily militarized state and following orders was valued. In that culture, if you followed orders you should be fine and not following then was something very bad.
  - pimmen 9y ago
    Yes, the reason the Allies had jointly agreed not to allow that defense was because they knew the Germans would use it like they did after WWI in Leipzig. But, the Allies also had to reconcile this with the Yamashita standard; that commanders have to take responsibility for what their subordinates are doing even if they haven't explicitly ordered it to convict other war criminals, most famously Tomoyuki Yamashita for the crimes his soldiers committed in the Philippines. Which leads to this back and forth tennis game at every ethical discussion of who's really responsible; the boss or the peon? IMHO, convict them both.
    - watwut 9y ago
      Both are really responsible. The idea that there must be single responsible party instead of multiple people responsible for their partial contributions is fallacy. You can excuse peon when he trully has no other choice and does bare minimum to survive/protect familly/etc. These went above and beyond what was necessary to prove themselves, make their careers or out of conviction. You can excuse boss when the soldiers disobeyed, he lost control and truly attempted to stop the situation. Not when it is smirk smirk we all know what is expected/tolerated what is going to happen. And these knew what will happen and wanted it happen.
pimmen 9y ago
It’s seen as a cowardly defense in that you argue against any personal resonsibility for something you were ordered to do. In the particular case of the Nuremberg tribunals, no the superior orders defense did not work because the Allies had jointly decided to not allow it. However, during the My Lai massacre of 1968 US soldiers successfully used the defense to reduce their sentences when they were court martialed.

Hi, what is that debate about Nuremberg? Did it allow to escape responsibility ? Genuinely interested.

by tajen 9y ago

Hi, what is that debate about Nuremberg? Did it allow to escape responsibility ? Genuinely interested.

Nurenberg is where they held the trials for Nazis after World War II. Many of them claimed that they were only following orders, which quickly became known as the “Nuremberg defense”. I honestly don’t know to what degree it worked. It’s obviously quite clear that it’s seen as a cowards way out; that people should have done the right thing in spite of orders.

watwut 9y ago
It did not worked. And big names were not just following orders anyway. But it was not just covardly way out. The prewar German culture really thought that way. It was heavily militarized state and following orders was valued. In that culture, if you followed orders you should be fine and not following then was something very bad.
- pimmen 9y ago
  Yes, the reason the Allies had jointly agreed not to allow that defense was because they knew the Germans would use it like they did after WWI in Leipzig. But, the Allies also had to reconcile this with the Yamashita standard; that commanders have to take responsibility for what their subordinates are doing even if they haven't explicitly ordered it to convict other war criminals, most famously Tomoyuki Yamashita for the crimes his soldiers committed in the Philippines. Which leads to this back and forth tennis game at every ethical discussion of who's really responsible; the boss or the peon? IMHO, convict them both.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Both are really responsible. The idea that there must be single responsible party instead of multiple people responsible for their partial contributions is fallacy. You can excuse peon when he trully has no other choice and does bare minimum to survive/protect familly/etc. These went above and beyond what was necessary to prove themselves, make their careers or out of conviction. You can excuse boss when the soldiers disobeyed, he lost control and truly attempted to stop the situation. Not when it is smirk smirk we all know what is expected/tolerated what is going to happen. And these knew what will happen and wanted it happen.

pimmen 9y ago

It’s seen as a cowardly defense in that you argue against any personal resonsibility for something you were ordered to do. In the particular case of the Nuremberg tribunals, no the superior orders defense did not work because the Allies had jointly decided to not allow it. However, during the My Lai massacre of 1968 US soldiers successfully used the defense to reduce their sentences when they were court martialed.