41 ms·
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,
by 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 agoBoth 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.