4 ms·

The author of that has been at the sharp end and has been a senior commander. There are two kinds of expected disobedience to orders in the US military. One is

The author of that has been at the sharp end and has been a senior commander. There are two kinds of expected disobedience to orders in the US military. One is disobeying an illegal order, such as one to shoot prisoners. The other is doing what needs to be done to accomplish the mission despite conflicting orders. The second is why military orders have a "Commander's Intent" section. If the situation on the ground is not what was expected when the order was give, officers are expected to adapt to the new situation and overcome problems. Here's Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley writing about that back in 2017.[1] That was not about the moral issue, but the operational issues when command is messed up. Milley faced the moral issue when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Trump lost the election. Here's the US officer's oath: "I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." German military oath, before Hitler: "I swear by God this holy oath, that I want to ever loyally and sincerely serve my people and fatherland and be prepared as a brave and obedient soldier to risk my life for this oath at any time." After Hitler: "I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath." [1] https://www.army.mil/article/187293/future_warfare_requires_disciplined_disobedience_army_chief_says https://www.army.mil/article/187293/future_warfare_requires_...

elygre 2y ago
I assume that the paragraph called «after hitler» is more appropriately called «during hitler» or similar. Do you know what the current path is on Germany? (I don’t, honest question!) (Edited typo)
- Tomte 2y ago
  „Ich schwöre, der Bundesrepublik Deutschland treu zu dienen und das Recht und die Freiheit des deutschen Volkes tapfer zu verteidigen, so wahr mir Gott helfe.“ I swear to serve the Federal Republic of Germany faithfully and to bravely defend the rights and freedom of the German people, so help me God.”
  - ninalanyon 2y ago
    No mention of 'obey' in the German one.
    - Tomte 2y ago
      No, that part is in the law about the armed forces. And I remember distinctly from my compulsory service that we got extensive lectures about the legality of orders and when to disregard them (and report further up the chain of command), with examples.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > I assume that the paragraph called «after hitler» is more appropriately called «during hitler» or similar. What? Why would they change it? ;D On a more serious note, swearing allegiance to someone who's not alive isn't really much of an issue; it's basically the same thing as the US oath to "the Constitution".
- DicIfTEx 2y ago
  I shared a book in another comment[0] which contains an entire chapter[1] on the topic of (dis)obedience in the German Bundeswehr, which has a more permissive approach to individual objection than many comparable armies. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43087041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43087041 [1]: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315547336-12/conscience-lieu-obedience-cases-selective-conscientious-objection-german-bundeswehr-j%C3%BCrgen-rose https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97813155... (available on Google Scholar at https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:H0ZxVDtHhQ8J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&scioq=conscience+in+lieu+of+obedience https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:H0ZxVD...)
gadders 2y ago
>>Milley faced the moral issue when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Trump lost the election And sadly he failed the test.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > And sadly he failed the test. Perhaps less than you think: https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/general-mark-milley-trump-coup/675375/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...
  - sigzero 2y ago
    No, he 100% failed the test.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      Well yes, clearly in terms of supporting and defending the Constitution, the military should have shown up to defend the capitol in far more timely manner. But honestly, as a foreigner I was just glad the military didn't come down on the side of Trump. As I understand it the leaders of the military are appointed by the president, people in the military love guns and gun rights, and veterans are pro-Trump by a wide margin [1] even following Jan 6th. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-veterans-remain-a-republican-group-backing-trump-over-harris-by-wide-margin/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-...
      - jeffrallen 2y ago
        The leaders of the American military love the constitution, and one relatively small thing on it is gun rights.
        michaelt 2y ago
        Sure - the gun rights stuff is just me saying it makes sense why the military could skew Republican. The linked survey saying veterans are 61% pro-Trump vs 37% pro-Harris sounds plausible. Loving the constitution is all very well, but Republican voters and senators seem to manage to square that with supporting Trump. Makes no sense to me, but apparently to 50% of the American population it does. So IMHO the military could plausibly have backed a Trump coup, if the coup had been better planned. And I was glad when they didn't!
michaelt 2y ago
And here's the US Army oath of enlistment https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html > "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Note that the enlisted soldiers' oath includes "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States" which the officers' oath doesn't.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  That is because commissioned officers are especially responsible for upholding the Constitution as opposed to swearing an oath to one person or a group of people.
- Balgair 2y ago
  As it was told to me, the part about swearing the oath to the constitution comes before the President, and it is understood by all service-members that said word order very much matters. In that, if the President gives an unconstitutional order, your honor demands that you follow the constitution. Also, that '(or affirm)' bit is interesting too. It's there because some religions prohibit swearing, most notably in US history, the Quakers. In fact, a few Quaker presidents have refused to swear during inaugurations and have chosen to affirm instead, I think.

elygre 2y ago

I assume that the paragraph called «after hitler» is more appropriately called «during hitler» or similar. Do you know what the current path is on Germany? (I don’t, honest question!) (Edited typo)

Tomte 2y ago
„Ich schwöre, der Bundesrepublik Deutschland treu zu dienen und das Recht und die Freiheit des deutschen Volkes tapfer zu verteidigen, so wahr mir Gott helfe.“ I swear to serve the Federal Republic of Germany faithfully and to bravely defend the rights and freedom of the German people, so help me God.”
- ninalanyon 2y ago
  No mention of 'obey' in the German one.
  - Tomte 2y ago
    No, that part is in the law about the armed forces. And I remember distinctly from my compulsory service that we got extensive lectures about the legality of orders and when to disregard them (and report further up the chain of command), with examples.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
> I assume that the paragraph called «after hitler» is more appropriately called «during hitler» or similar. What? Why would they change it? ;D On a more serious note, swearing allegiance to someone who's not alive isn't really much of an issue; it's basically the same thing as the US oath to "the Constitution".
DicIfTEx 2y ago
I shared a book in another comment[0] which contains an entire chapter[1] on the topic of (dis)obedience in the German Bundeswehr, which has a more permissive approach to individual objection than many comparable armies. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43087041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43087041 [1]: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315547336-12/conscience-lieu-obedience-cases-selective-conscientious-objection-german-bundeswehr-j%C3%BCrgen-rose https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97813155... (available on Google Scholar at https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:H0ZxVDtHhQ8J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&scioq=conscience+in+lieu+of+obedience https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:H0ZxVD...)

gadders 2y ago

>>Milley faced the moral issue when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Trump lost the election And sadly he failed the test.

throw0101d 2y ago
> And sadly he failed the test. Perhaps less than you think: https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/general-mark-milley-trump-coup/675375/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...
- sigzero 2y ago
  No, he 100% failed the test.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    Well yes, clearly in terms of supporting and defending the Constitution, the military should have shown up to defend the capitol in far more timely manner. But honestly, as a foreigner I was just glad the military didn't come down on the side of Trump. As I understand it the leaders of the military are appointed by the president, people in the military love guns and gun rights, and veterans are pro-Trump by a wide margin [1] even following Jan 6th. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-veterans-remain-a-republican-group-backing-trump-over-harris-by-wide-margin/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-...
    - jeffrallen 2y ago
      The leaders of the American military love the constitution, and one relatively small thing on it is gun rights.
      - michaelt 2y ago
        Sure - the gun rights stuff is just me saying it makes sense why the military could skew Republican. The linked survey saying veterans are 61% pro-Trump vs 37% pro-Harris sounds plausible. Loving the constitution is all very well, but Republican voters and senators seem to manage to square that with supporting Trump. Makes no sense to me, but apparently to 50% of the American population it does. So IMHO the military could plausibly have backed a Trump coup, if the coup had been better planned. And I was glad when they didn't!

michaelt 2y ago

And here's the US Army oath of enlistment https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html > "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Note that the enlisted soldiers' oath includes "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States" which the officers' oath doesn't.

psunavy03 2y ago
That is because commissioned officers are especially responsible for upholding the Constitution as opposed to swearing an oath to one person or a group of people.
Balgair 2y ago
As it was told to me, the part about swearing the oath to the constitution comes before the President, and it is understood by all service-members that said word order very much matters. In that, if the President gives an unconstitutional order, your honor demands that you follow the constitution. Also, that '(or affirm)' bit is interesting too. It's there because some religions prohibit swearing, most notably in US history, the Quakers. In fact, a few Quaker presidents have refused to swear during inaugurations and have chosen to affirm instead, I think.