Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Only obeying orders...
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Sunday, 29th November 2009
A month or so ago I watched a documentary on the Great Escape. As well as the escape itself the documentary went into the hunt for the Gestapo and SS who had murdered the escaped airmen.
The documentary was very sympathetic to the Gestapo who had carried out the murders claiming that they were merely obeying orders and that they had no choice in the matter. At no point did the documentary challenge this. Also at no point did the documentary go into the nature of the Gestapo as an institution and the types of people who made up its ranks. The documentary even tried to justify the murders by emphasising the roll of the RAF in the bombing campagin.
However I have read in a number of books on the SS and the Holocaust (Hitler's Willing Executioners, SS a warning from history and Hitler's Holocaust) that indicate that German SS/police/soldiers usually had a choice. The books all give a number of examples where German servicemen refused to carry out murderous orders but suffered no adverse consequences. The Nuremberg trials discounted the defence of 'only obeying orders'
So were the Gestapo responsible for their actions or were they merely coerced like the documentary argued. -
Message 2
Posted by Laura988 (U14088665) on Monday, 30th November 2009
I believe that everybody has a choice.
I read many books giving examples that most of the atrocities in the occupied countries Germans committed on their own initiative.
A good example here is Jochen Bohler's book "Wehrmacht crimes in Poland". It describe in details that not only SS or Gestapo but also regular army supposed to attack only military targets commited countless number of crimes on civilians in 1939. -
Message 3
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 30th November 2009
They would have had a choice about joining the SS, as opposed to the Army, and to some degree, about the killing.
However, when you create a culture where killing certain people is 'acceptable' or even 'desirable', then many will actively take part in the killing, who might not have done so in a 'normal' situation. -
Message 4
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 30th November 2009
Colquhoun,
The documentary was very sympathetic to the Gestapo who had carried out the murders claiming that they were merely obeying orders and that they had no choice in the matter. At no point did the documentary challenge this. Also at no point did the documentary go into the nature of the Gestapo as an institution and the types of people who made up its ranks. The documentary even tried to justify the murders by emphasising the roll of the RAF in the bombing campagin.Β
On what channel did you watch that? Are they known for airing such docs, claiming to be "viewpoint-neutral"? -
Message 5
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Monday, 30th November 2009
Giraffe47,
"They would have had a choice about joining the SS"
Whilst prewar entry to the SS was voluntary, many Heer(army)/Police officers did transfer voluntarily, e.g. Paul Hausser. As the war progressed and the Waffen SS expanded many Heer/Police officers were transferred involuntarily to SS units and to make up losses late in the war surplus Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine members were transfeered to SS units.
It was also not uncommon for men to be transfeered from the Waffen SS, Heer and Police to the Allgemeine SS and/or SS Totenkopfverbande -
Message 6
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Tuesday, 1st December 2009
"Only obeying orders..."
Isn't this what men in armies, all armies, have to do?
I've no idea how it worked in the German army, nor how things are in the British army now, but in the 1950s we were told an order had to be obeyed, at once, and without question.
Not long after being called up, we were given a lecture by an officer who explained that orders had to be obeyed. Only afterwards, if someone still had a complaint, he could write to his commanding officer, using the formula: "Sir, I have the honour to address you on the subject of..." etc.
At the end of his lecture he said "Any questions?" clearly not expecting any (apart from the usual "Sir, may we smoke?") but one thoughtful bloke put his hand up. "Sir, what if we were ordered to march some folk into a gas chamber and then turn on the gas-taps? We'd have to obey the order, and by the time we wrote out our letter to the CO they'd all be dead, wouldn't they, Sir?"
The officer was a bit put out by this. He hemmed and hawed, and finally said: "Well of course, it isn't very likely, is it? I mean, after all, we're British." (Laughter.) Very droll, but I (for one) didn't feel very comfortable with his answer.
Since then, whenever I hear somebody sneering at the Germans for saying "I was only obeying orders", I remember that officer. -
Message 7
Posted by pc1973 (U13716600) on Tuesday, 1st December 2009
I watched this as well, it was on C4 if I remember.
I thought it was good.
They were sort of sympathetic to one of the Gestapo who was involved in the murder of an Australian Airmen (forgot his name) due to the fact that he was not the trigger man and had not been long with them. His mother wrote to the mother of the airmen begging for mercy. The letter went unanswered and the man hanged.
A comparison was made to a career Gestapo man that had killed many people but was not caught until the 1960's, I think he got three years. So it was not so much what you had done but how long you could evade justice which really decided your fate.
It was also pointed out the German Population in General had no mercy for these 'Terror-Flies' and this attitude would have no doubt made it easier for the Gestapo to carry out these murders.
My own view is that you would have to be pretty dedicated to the Nazi's to join the Gestapo anyway so I would not have thought most would have thought twice about it, Illegal order or not.
Regards,
Paul. -
Message 8
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 3rd December 2009
The Gestapo was one of the first state organisations Nazified after Hitler came to power. Rather than being part of the military, it grew out of the police force, then came under the sway of the SS bureaucracy, which was a branch of the Nazi Party rather than military organisation. Given the nature of the regime, and the work undertaken by the Gestapo, you would not expect many non-Nazis in their ranks by the time war commenced in 1939.
At least in the early part of the war, there were instances of people in the German military and para-military (ie, usually police recruits) refusing to participate in murders. These individuals were largely left un-molested, surprisingly enough.
But refusal to follow orders in the Gestapo, in its particular situation of being thoroughly Nazified would, I suspect, be highly unusual.
However, regardless of the situation, an illegal order is an illegal order. Following such orders is criminal. Even if the order is given by a British officer in, say, an African colony in rebellion. -
Message 9
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 3rd December 2009
TimTrack,
However, regardless of the situation, an illegal order is an illegal order. Following such orders is criminal. Even if the order is given by a British officer in, say, an African colony in rebellion.Β
Yes but who ever called an officer on that in the field? -
Message 10
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Thursday, 3rd December 2009
Actually I don't think it was that surprising that the Nazis didn't forcibly compel soldiers/ police/SS to carry out murderous orders.
There were almost always plenty of volunteers more than happy to murder PoWs or children etc. If one German refused then another would take his place and secondly the fact that it was known that it was possible to refuse reinforced group loyalty. -
Message 11
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Saturday, 5th December 2009
However, regardless of the situation, an illegal order is an illegal order. Following such orders is criminal. Even if the order is given by a British officer...Β
Hmm. Having been given an order, are the men all supposed to sit around and discuss it?
Seems very unlikely. In any army. -
Message 12
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Saturday, 5th December 2009
Tim Track, have you ever been in a situation where you may have been given an order to shoot to kill? In any Army what is an illegal order? Anyway, what is a legal order? An order is an order and must be obeyed. One is required to obey the last order, obey the order and complain afterwards. Tim are you employed in the Legal Profession? Any openings? Too many questions and too few answers. One must follow orders without question, the Debating Society is shelved during Troubled Times. P/C.
-
Message 13
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Saturday, 5th December 2009
Jak, seems unlikely, there was such an Army, Fred Carno's, the Ideal Army, sadly disappeared without trace, the order was given to Quick March, however no one would or could give the order to Halt, so they just disappeared over the hill. When I was in the British Army I was frequently questioned if I thought I was in Fred Carno's Army, as it turned out a good thing I wasn't, they disappeared when they marched over the mountain and was never heard from again, only by fresh recruits faced with the same question. No they were never Mentioned in Dispatches. (strange for you to ask).
-
Message 14
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Saturday, 5th December 2009
Jak, when still in Britain I had to take one of our men 'inside', prison, on the sheet it was very specific, I had to hand over a live body, or such reading. On the truck transporting us I was lucky as a sergeant, a total stranger asked me if I had taken a man in before, when I answered no, he told me of all the pit-falls so as I was wise to the nonsense dished out by the prison staff.
-
Message 15
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Wednesday, 9th December 2009
This is an interesting point and one that I have taken a new perspective on lately. It is true that mounting a defence on merely obeying orders was declared as no defence. However this may have been due to that fact that all those accused of war crimes would inevitably fall back on this as a defence. While I agree there were many cases of german soldiers refusing to take part in atrocities without punishment I think this seemed to be a decision that the commanding officier would have made. In addition, while in no way wishing to condone the sort of vile acts that were committed particularly in Russia and the Baltic states it should be acknowledged that many soldiers felt a duty to obey orders at all times even if this meant killing civilians who they had been led to believe were a threat to their very existence. The fact that these people posed no threat to them at all is by the by.
I should also like to point you in the direction of the atrocity at Oradour sur Glane in France for a polemic on this issue. I have visited Oradour twice now and have read extensively on the subject. In short in 1944 the Das Reich division of the Waffen SS attacked a small village outside Limoges. They shot all the men and the herded 600 odd women and children into the church. They then tried to blow up the church but only succeeded in stting fire to it. They then proceeded to shoot all the women and children and those not shot were burnt alive. Only one woman managed to escape. The French so outraged by this left the village as a burnt out shell and built another village along side the old one. The old village was let unaltered as a shrine to the murdered and can be visited today.
The point is that when some of the culprits were brought to trial in 1953 it transpired that many of the soldiers were from Alsace Lorraine, a disputed area between France and Germany. It transpires that 140,000 Alsations were co-opted into the German army, many into the Waffen SS. The reason for this was that the German SS contingent being more committed to the Nazi cause would be more likely to report any trangressions. In the event the trial split France down the middle as French Alsatians argued that the soldiers acted under duress and had they not done what the nazis wanted their own families would have been sent to concentration camps. There is evidence that this did happen and indeed many of the Alsations did desert when the could feign death in the battle at Normandy. In the event all were found guilty and given various sentences but these were overturned no more than 2 to 3 years later. Obviously the French felt there was some credibility in these soldiers argument about being forced to obey orders.
While I would agree that generally the term obeying orders is not a credibile defence I think it is not possible to say this is a definitive truth and each case needs to be judged on its own merits. -
Message 16
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 10th December 2009
While I would agree that generally the term obeying orders is not a credibile defence I think it is not possible to say this is a definitive truth and each case needs to be judged on its own merits.Β
May I respectfully ask if you were ever in an army, Sleepysimplesimon?
Petaluma says it all in Message 12. When you're given an order, you jump to it. You may not like it, but you don't argue or sit around debating the issue. Maybe an anarchist army would work like that, but I suspect it wouldn't function very well - as an army.
The villain at Oradour was the officer who gave the orders. Apparently he went far beyond what he had been ordered to do (resulting in complaints from his superiors, but by then he was dead) but how were his men to know that?
Maybe they should have disobeyed his orders. But that would have been Mutiny. -
Message 17
Posted by Darrenatwork (U11744656) on Thursday, 10th December 2009
The programme (and I believe the associated book - title evades me at the moment) were sympathetic to a couple of the Gestapo involved. One mentioned above and another who was threatened that not only him, but his family, would be murdered if he didn't carry out the orders*. As far as I remember this individual always admitted his part in, and remorse for, the murders he took part in.
At no point was the documentary "sympathetic to the Gestapo" as the first post implies.
*I'm not sure what proof, if any, exists of this threat to his family but it seems to have been believed by his interrogators. -
Message 18
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Thursday, 10th December 2009
Jak,
No I was never in the army. However I do not see the relevance of this. When I said that saying "I was obeying orders" was not a credible offence I was not expressing an opinion I was stating a point of fact. That is exactly what was stated at the trial by the judge, Saint-SaΓ«ns, at the Oradour trial.
I take it from your comments that you were in the army. If this was so I would be interested to know where your boundaries would be. If you are suggesting that there are no boundaries then I think this a moral point you will need to consider. I also think there is a difference between carrying out an order which you know to be morally wrong when the consequences of not doing so would endanger yourself or those close to you.
You seem to suggest that being in the army commits you to carry out any actions whatsoever merely because you MUST obey. While we all have a right to protect ourself and our families from harm, we do not have the right to murder, for example, innocent women and children. Therefore I would say as long as there are no consequences to refusing to follow orders you know to be wrong it is only right that you should disobey even if this is mutiny. You should never obey an order which is quite clearly against the rules of humanity. We would be human beings first and soldiers second.
You are quite right about one of the officier at Oradour, Major Diekmann, in that he died in the battle for Normandy before being committed for trial. However his commanding officer and one of his subordinates whose whereabouts were know to the authorties at the time of the trial were never indicted for the crime. This fell mainly onto the Alsations who quite clearly had acted under duress. -
Message 19
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Thursday, 10th December 2009
Darren, I saw the documentary too and that was my understanding also.
-
Message 20
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Friday, 11th December 2009
You seem to suggest that being in the army commits you to carry out any actions whatsoever merely because you MUST obey.Β
That's what we were told, quite forcibly. "An order is an order & must be obeyed at all times without question." Or, as a mere corporal put it: "When I shout 'S**t!' - you jump on a shovel!" To disobey, or argue against, the order of a commissioned officer would have been unthinkable heresy.
...we do not have the right to murder, for example, innocent women and children.Β
How about being ordered to drop bombs on residential areas? (Er, no Sir. I think I'd rather drop them in the sea instead.)
Therefore I would say as long as there are no consequences to refusing to follow orders you know to be wrong it is only right that you should disobey even if this is mutiny.Β
But there certainly would be consequences. From being put on a charge, to being courtmartialled, and thereafter suffering anything from 'jankers', to being sentenced to the 'glass-house', to execution by firing-squad.
Sleepysimplysimon - I don't think you'd have liked being in the forces. With your (admirable) commonsense moral approach, registering as a conscientious objector might be your best plan, if conscription ever comes back. -
Message 21
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Friday, 11th December 2009
Jak, You make a very good point about dropping bombs on residential areas. One could quite easily make a point about double standards when refusing to shoot innocent women and children compared with dropping bombs on civilians. We often do not connect the two because dropping bombs tends to be more impersonal and I take that point.
However commanding officers have a responsibility to adhere to human rights conventions also. One could equally argue that ones commitment to obey is compromised at the point that one is ordered to break international law or conventions. In the Iraq war we were told that strategic bombing was targetted at military targets and would cause the minimal casualties to civilians. However we now know that that was untrue. During the Second World war we dropped many tonnes of bombs on Germany however it could also be argued that from a moral standpoint this was necessary in the overall fight against Hitler. I am not sure how shooting innocent women and children furthered the aim of winning the war. Most of this was done for ideological reasons. -
Message 22
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 11th December 2009
Jak
With your (admirable) commonsense moral approach, registering as a conscientious objector might be your best plan, if conscription ever comes back.Β
If my nation believed that a mindless obedience to orders was the highest good, then I should not need to be conscripted. I would volunteer to fight - for the other side. -
Message 23
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Sunday, 13th December 2009
Not in answer to any post, but many forget that at the end of the war the Allies held all the Marbles, so to them any OPINION of what was Just was from THEIR findings. At the trials, what if the courts sat as equals? Both were waring parties, where was the Justice? It could be who was the most innocent or to blame.
As in time there is a good chance that the trials will be regarded as a Kangaroo Court a Victor Vs. Vanquished (My Lords I rest my Case).
In the future perhaps as much information will be demanded of the cause of WW2. certainly did not just happen.
In action one can kill but not murder, some may think that strange but there is a world of difference. My cousin in Tanks got fed up with attacking, then when enemy ran out of ammunition or what ever cause raised a white flag or something resembling and came out smiling. He started to give no quarter. He was caught and was fined two weeks loss of pay. He said he was fortunate as in defence he said he was in France in 1939, and gave his unit. (they got clobbered) He said he took a chance with that, as it could have gone the other way. They had been in heavy action for a time and that was taken in consideration. Reading accounts of American Infantrymen fighting in Europe, they related of the enemy surrendering in similar circumstances, and wanted to keep on firing. In afterthought, could one excuse one after facing probable death lightly excuse their opponent? (don't lie, one can gamble with money but life is quite different, one can get more money, but not a life)..) -
Message 24
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Monday, 14th December 2009
My cousin in Tanks got fed up with attacking, then when enemy ran out of ammunition or what ever cause raised a white flag or something resembling and came out smiling. He started to give no quarter.Β
That was like the rules in a siege. Once you have made a 'practical breach' in the walls, then the fort/town is given the chance to surrender, on terms. But if they refuse and oblige you to make a costly assault, then you need show no mercy. -
Message 25
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 16th December 2009
"...One could equally argue that ones commitment to obey is compromised at the point that one is ordered to break international law or conventions..."
There is no doubt at all on this point. If you follow an illegal order, you personally are liable.
"...In the Iraq war we were told that strategic bombing was targetted at military targets and would cause the minimal casualties to civilians. However we now know that that was untrue..."
Do we ? I do not know it to be true. If you have proof of this assertion then you are free to start legal proceedings. I look forward to the results of the case you bring. -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 16th December 2009
Gestapo and Wermacht did horrible crimes but if we are to raise the question of "morarility" they are not the first tos see. Indeed they were obeying orders. True there were deranged personalities in there that took it to the extremes. But it is widely accepted that they did not took initiatives to do excesses, and of course they rarely involved their own civilians apart the pongroms in the 1930s.
On the contrary the likes of Turkish actually took pleasure in commiting the 3 genocides in Minor Assia. It was not just the army or militia but all Turkish society that took part. Muslim villagers would get out like cavemen pouring into christian villages with which they had absolutely no difference to solve just because they considered it their "legal right" to kill, rape and pillage the christians on will.
Germans soldiers killed with 1 bullet 7 people in a row. It was a cold procedure. The German soldier would not take any pleasure in it.
On the contrary the Turkish soldier & armed civilian took pleasure in killing 1 by 1 with any weapon possible, the slower the death the better, the more pain the better, the rape in front of the husband and on public site the better... you have to read stories of the Armenian forced marches of the women, elder and children (because all men were already slaughtered). Each time they passed 20km-30km outside some muslim village, the muslim men would get on to their horses to run and catch up easily with them and enter and rape the girls... as they marched... on the carriages... they would also steal their cloths so as to accelerate death...
That is the bitter truth. But people are guided to think that in this world, all evil concentraed in the minds of Germans. Yes they were massive killers but mostly cold ones. Other cultures like the Turkish took massive pleasure out of doing it having all of their society participating willingly and actively in it and that is why they were so effective despite being so regressive and without the industrial means that Germans had. -
Message 27
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 17th December 2009
There is no doubt at all on this point. If you follow an illegal order, you personally are liable.Β
Hmm. "No doubt at all"? That sounds OK in the calm of a court-room, long after the event, with lawyers arguing the ifs and buts of the case.
Maybe there should have been lawyers on hand at the time, to advise the troops about the possible illegality of any order which had just been given.
It would have been easier simply to ignore all orders, just to be on the safe side. Sounds like an interesting way to run an army. -
Message 28
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 17th December 2009
Jak
Unfortunately, there is no doubt about this. Service personnel are caught between a rock and a hard place.
You are correct that under military law an order must be obeyed, whether or not it is legal (as I was taught during officer training). If a serviceperson disobeys an order, they have committed a military offence, although they can use the fact that the order was illegal in mitigation.
However, the requirement to obey an order does not indemnify the individual from prosecution under civil criminal law if the act is illegal. In fact, it never has - as prosecutions of soldiers firing on rioters in the C18th and C19th and soldiers in Northern Ireland more recently have demonstrated.
The customary "Laws of War" did recognise the defence of "obeying orders", recognising that soldiers on active service who disobeyed an order were liable to capital punishment. It was the superior who gave the illegal order who was guilty of the crime. But this applied to Courts Martial only - military authorities were supposed to protect PoWs and was intended to cover crimes, such as the summary execution of prisoners, carried out on the battlefield.
Nuremberg changed that, but it should be noted that many of those seeking to rely on the "obeying orders" defence were trying to apply it to non-combat situations, and were often senior enough to have been aware that the worst sanction they faced was dismissal, not execution.
Nonetheless, the defence no longer stands. There has been considerable criticism ever since. While it would be wrong for any serviceperson to able to hide behind the "obeying orders" defence in any and all circumstances, the modern notion of all individuals, of whatever rank, being liable in all circumstances can be exploited to scapegoat junior ranks and allow their seniors to escape. This is one of the major criticisms of the outcome of the My Lai investigations. Lt Calley was imprisoned, but the senior officers whose orders he believed he was carrying out were not.
There have been instances of servicemen accepting that they would be punished for disobeying an order because they felt it was illegal. One of the best known ones in WWII is a British tank officer in Normandy who refused to participate in an attack on a French town because the populace were not to be given warning of the preliminary bombing. He accepted in advance that this would lead to being cashiered and imprisoned (which was indeed his fate). Wish I could find his name.
Cheers
LW -
Message 29
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 17th December 2009
Thanks LW. That clears it up, but the poor lower ranks really are caught between a rock & a hard place.
I am very glad - and grateful - that I was never on the receiving end (as a 2-year conscript, and a very junior NCO) of any such 'doubtful' orders, and that I was never in any stressful situation where really nasty things can happen.
Trust the senior officers to get away with it by blaming their juniors for obeying orders. Brilliant. -
Message 30
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Thursday, 17th December 2009
If anything the German military enjoyed their 'work' during ww2 frequently exceeding their orders and taking pleasure in slaughtering women and children. Even when they were specifically ordered not to murder Jews at the end of the war when Himler thought he could do a deal with the Allies the ordinary German soldiers still massacred their prisoners. Such was the extreme level of hate.
So no the Germans did not merely obey orders, -
Message 31
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 18th December 2009
With soldiers, we are discussing individuals refusing to follow an order because they believe doing so would be committing a crime.
But what about a duty to try to prevent a crime? For example, what sort of actions might a good person in Nazi Germany have taken? Just not vote for Hitler? To refuse to take part in work that would assist the regime? Sabotage? Killing fellow Germans who supported the Nazis? In other words, are there circumstances where the right thing is to refuse to follow orders/laws and be a terrorist? In which case, is an 'honest belief' that your actions are proportionate and will have a good effect a sufficient justification?
If we are talking about history, especially the Nazis, it is a safe discussion. But what about contemporary issues? No wonder states tend to have ambiguous laws and double standards about 'obeying orders'. It opens a can of worms. -
Message 32
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Friday, 18th December 2009
Tim,
If you look at the estimated figures for Iraqi civilian dead you will see that estimates range from between 100,000 to a million for the five years from invasion to date.
I quote from the Washington Post "A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred."
It goes on "It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group"
I am not saying that all of these occurred as a result of bombing but even the Allies accept that there were many civilians who died as a result of collateral damage. It is a myth to suggest that our technology is so advanced that it can target only military targets.
In terms of starting legal proceedings you are totally correct, Bush and Blair could, and in some opinions should, be put on trial for war crimes. -
Message 33
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 29th December 2009
"...If you look at the estimated figures for Iraqi civilian dead you will see that estimates range from between 100,000 to a million for the five years from invasion to date..."
I queried the assertion that coalition aeriel bombing was responsible for an un-reasonable number of deaths. No one has ever claimed that civilians would not be killed accidentally during warfare. Clearly you have given up on supporting the assertion that coalition bombing was responsible for the deaths. Most of the deaths you are reporting on here are the result of insurgent activities.
Making wild accusations against only one side while ignoring facts is mere propaganda. -
Message 34
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 29th December 2009
Oh, and another thing :
"...In terms of starting legal proceedings you are totally correct, Bush and Blair could, and in some opinions should, be put on trial for war crimes..."
I at no stage said on this thread that Messrs Bush and Blair could or should be put on trial. If you want to say something, say it in your own name. Inferring that your banal thoughts are supported by someone else is just irritating. -
Message 35
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Tuesday, 29th December 2009
I think you will find I made no wild assertions, I only quoted information freely available in the public domain.
"Clearly you have given up on supporting the assertion that coalition bombing was responsible for the deaths."
Without any clear figues for this it is difficult to make any assertions for figures killed through bombing however common sense should tell us that bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad is inevitably going to result in casualties.
I would be interested to know what your figure is for a reasonable amount of deaths by bombing. -
Message 36
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Tuesday, 29th December 2009
You need to lower you irony receptors.
Your rye comment on taking legal precedings against Bush and Blair was taken by me to mean that you in some way disagreed with the concept. -
Message 37
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 29th December 2009
"...I think you will find I made no wild assertions, I only quoted information freely available in the public domain..."
You wildly asserted that coalition bombing did in fact cause other than minimal civilian casualties. When challenged you attempted to use figures which had nothing whatsoever to do with the point you were being challenged on.
"...Without any clear figues for this it is difficult to make any assertions..."
And yet make assertions you do.
"...common sense should tell us that bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad is inevitably going to result in casualties..."
And, once more you attempt to defend your position with an irrelevancy. Again, no one claimed that no civilian casualties would occur. The question is what is likely to happen, and what actually happened. if you have a point you should be able to support it with rather more than vague assertions. Where are the specific instances of mass casualties ? Which speciic attacks are you troubled by ?
"...I would be interested to know what your figure is for a reasonable amount of deaths by bombing..."
Would you really. I would be interested in your figure for a reasonable amount of casualties. -
Message 38
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Saturday, 9th January 2010
To get back to "I was only obeying orders" it seems the best advice for decent, reasonable human beings would be to try to ensure they never put themselves in a position where they had to obey orders. So don't join the army. Any army.
If you're a civilian, and an army (anybody's army) is around, do your best to get well away.
I was once told by a man who'd been on a British submarine in WW2 that, out at sea, they'd encountered some survivors from a sunk German U-boat on a raft. "We shot them all" he said. "What else could we do?" No room for them on his sub, and if they'd got away they'd have reported the British sub's position.
War is hell. Rules? Geneva conventions? All nonsense. Orders? Best ignored, if you can get away with it. Otherwise, later, they'll blame you for obeying them. -
Message 39
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Monday, 1st February 2010
So - after a few weeks - any suggestions about how the lowly "other ranks" should react to orders from officers?
Jump to it - or what? -
Message 40
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
There probably is enough grey area in military and civilian law to offer reasonable protection to soldiers who refuse to obey illegal orders. And officers would encounter practical difficulties if they tried to ignore objections that an order is clearly illegal. Don't forget that military authorities, quite rightly, tend to be very critical of officers under whose command serious disciplinary problems or mutinies occur, and will investigate.
The more difficult moral issue, IMHO, is the division of responsibilities between soldiers and officers when the latter create a permissive environment. Psychological studies have demonstrated that entirely normal people are willing to commit cruel acts when somebody in a position of authority provides encouragement or approval, suspending normal social norms. The history of war demonstrates amply that in the stressful environment of warfare, atrocities are be committed by large numbers of men who would never do so in normal circumstances.
Cases in which officers give clearly illegal orders may be far less frequent than cases in which officers signal their willingness to look the other way, knowing what the nearly unavoidable consequences will be, but trying to avoid taking legal responsibility. The "incidents" at Abu Ghraib are probably the best known example (now) of what can happen when the upper ranks signal that they are willing to suspend the normal rules of war. It doesn't take particularly evil people to descend to this level, just opportunity and tacit approval.
Even when officers are held responsible for illegal actions occurring under their command, it is difficult to distinguish between an unintentional failure to maintain discipline, and intentionally turning a blind eye. -
Message 41
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
"...ignore objections that an order is clearly illegal..."
Yes. The problem is often that what is or is nor legal is not entirely clear(should I avoid mentioning Chilcott).
But when an order is clearly illegal, as in, 'go over there and shoot those children', any rank of the military that recieves that order MUST dis-obey. No democratic nation could possibly court martial someone for refusing if the act was clearly illegal. Governments, democratic or otherwise, off course, will often find it easy to simply cover up or deny the act ever happened.
That may leave a wide area where decisions are not clear cut, but that can be the case in any law. The recent controversy over the right of self defence shows this. -
Message 42
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
MM
I don't know if you have read it, but Philip Caputo's "A Rumour of War" details one such case of a permissive environment being created, and the consequences when it goes wrong.
Caputo was the officer involved an his account of how it happened, and how the (USMC in Vietnam) system reacted is very instructive. It is unlikely the modern Corps would act in the same way, but it does set out the conflicting imperatives that both lead to such cases and how they are dealt with.
LW -
Message 43
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 3rd February 2010
But when an order is clearly illegal, as in, 'go over there and shoot those children', any rank of the military that recieves that order MUST dis-obey.Β
OK, but how about dropping bombs on residential areas? -
Message 44
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 3rd February 2010
"...OK, but how about dropping bombs on residential areas?..."
Yes, a good question.
In fact, this is an example of what is or is not legal becoming fluid over time.
In 1939, this was probably regarded as illegal. But once one side did it, an 'inflation', as it were, of possible uses of violence set in. By the end of 1940, it was normal and legal.
Now, partly because technology has moved on, the deliberate targetting of workers and their housing is once more illegal.
This highlights another problem. Which is that international law itself is never quite so clear cut as some believe. That is not to say that some actions are not clearly illegal, but that the grey area is quite wide. -
Message 45
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Friday, 5th March 2010
So, it's a "grey area".
All those raids we heard about during the war - on the marshalling yards at Hamm, or on the Krupp works at Essen - were sometimes, really and deliberately, on residential housing: women, old grannies, children.
Naturally, the RAF chaps were only doing their (hazardous) duty, obeying orders.
I really don't want to hear anybody taking the mickey out of Germans saying: "Ve voz only obeyink orders". All armies are the same. -
Message 46
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 7th March 2010
By the end of 1940, it was normal and legal.Β
I think that that point needs to be set a little later. In the first years most of the air forces showed some restraint in the selection of targets. Perhaps surprisingly so in the light of pre-war predictions, which often assumed that the war would begin with an all-out attack on civilian populations, including the use of gas. Governments showed restraint at least as much out of fear as because of respect for international law.
The big area raids began only in 1942, following the approval of the "area bombing directive". In late 1940, the restrictions on causing what we would now call "collateral damage" had been lifted, but the targets were in most cases still "precision" military and industrial targets. The major exceptions were capital cities (Warsaw, London, Berlin) which were bombed for moral and propaganda effect.
The distinction between precision and area attacks may appear to be somewhat academic to those on the receiving end, because of the inaccuracy of the bombing. In fact there was a substantial difference, because the intentional destruction of city targets with incendiaries and light-cased HE bombs did a lot more damage, and caused a greatly increased number of fatalities, compared to the collateral damage of a traditional bombing raid.
In 1942 the bombing of residential areas probably became "normal" in the sense that it was common practice, but it was not "normal" in the sense that it was uncontroversial. Even within the headquarters of the RAF the debate continued, while USAAF officers continued to advocate the precise bombing of military targets, making it clear enough that they regarded the intentional targeting of residential areas as immoral. (Although the USAAF later used such tactics against Japan.)
Of course, that debate was not only about legality: Military effectiveness and political results were perhaps more important factors to those engaged in it. -
Message 47
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 7th March 2010
Jak,
You're right in essence. It is almost impossible to give a proper legal definition as to responsibility for war crimes, because to begin with it does depend on who wins.
Given that the culture of the people has to be taken into consideration(their general view on the worth of human life for example)as well as the military culture then extant at the time of the atrocities. A simple analogy would be cannibalism. Unacceptable in the 'ethical' world but perfectly reasonable where it was practiced, and, similarly tolerated, when under extreme conditions, in our 'civilized' world in more recent history. In this case the 'distinction' is that the victims were not killed for the express dietary requirements, thus murder is tolerated(and sometimes discretely hidden)by the winning side, as justifiable in the good cause.
The last century is testimony enough to how humankind can surrender morals to the exigencies of war and just cataloguing them does not help to clarify the situation, except perhaps for some to claim a moral superiority.
A woman vainly seeking to shelter her children from bombing in Liverpool will recognise an affinity with a German woman attempting the same in Berlin, but it's a even money bet that they would both cry out for vengeance against the 'war crime' committed against her.
The anomaly exists between the mass bombing of civilians who are seen as a viable target, yet very few of us would accept that Goebbels's wife and children should also hang as war criminals.
The truth is I suspect somewhere between a system where universal conscription is allowed and a culture that allows us to insist that another race is inferior to 'ours' and therefore is not worthy of the same considerations or respect(and perhaps not qualifying for 'legal' status). And of course the use of dismissive descriptive terms like 'Hun, Geeks, Gooks' help to reduce that respect even further. There is always a time afterwards when platitudes and mealy mouthed 'regrets' can be expressed.
Can we draw a distinction of war crime between the Japanese troops behaviour in Nan kin(with their culture in mind) or the effects of the fire-bombing of Tokyo or the atomic bombs on civilians in Hiroshima?
I make no mention of the other crimes committed in the struggle for empire which do not exactly qualify as 'war crimes' but they are no less indefensible.
But what about soldier against soldier? A professional force that is trained to kill? Is it possible to put a high velocity bullet through a man's head without hatred? And is it a 'crime' if it is so done?
And what about arms manufacturers;companies that profit from producing weapons that maim and kill, irrespective of the status of the victim? There was a certain Sergeant in the British army in 1940 who instructed his men that after removing the bayonet from his victims stomach they should stamp on the vanquished's genitalia. Because in his own words, 'if they survive the gut attack, then you to make sure that they won't produce any more Nazi '
Was that inducing or does it qualify as a war crime?
Regards,
Spruggles. -
Message 48
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Tuesday, 9th March 2010
Interesting, Spruggles. I used to wonder how anyone could have had any hate left for the Germans, after their encounter with our own beloved NCOs.
Just to be on the safe side (because you'll be blamed by your senior officers if it goes wrong - see above) it seems it would be safest to ignore all their orders, risk being sent to the glasshouse, maybe simply go AWOL. But even to think about such a course of action seems like treason, and it would certainly be no way to run an army.
I'm glad there's no conscription now, and anyway I'm far too old. -
Message 49
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 10th March 2010
Jak,
As M_M has as usual succinctly pointed out, the responsibility for area bombing lies solely with the authorities that ordered the raids. The individual crews, some of which were appalled by the decisions had no choice, other than, as you say either go awol or refuse to fly. Although there remains the individual mitigation, for example, I was only the pilot, I didn't drop the bombs - I was only the navigator, I only plotted the course etc, the penalty for refusal was the risk of being branded a coward, or worse a court marshal, as sadly occurred recently.
Thus the authority has control of the morals of the serviceman. I have an idea that the reason we in this country spend so much time ruminating on the reasons for the Dresden raid is because it was a time when we, so steeped in the principals and traditions of 'fair play' allowed our guard to slip and appeared as no better than the rest of those nasty Germans.
As for the individual soldier I think it necessary to understand the pressures that he was under at the crime. Propaganda, peer pressure, battle fatigue and so on. It is all too easy to sit in judgement fifty years after an event and come to the conclusions that suit your society's sympathies.
In the past I have represented people at disciplinary hearings and enquiries and it always rankled with me that those that sat in judgement had the convenience of time to reflect on circumstances that the accused had sometimes just seconds to decide on a course of action, that they were often had no real comprehension of the pressure involved and received salaries far above the accused.
Yes there were acts of brutality by the ordinary German soldier but there were also individual acts of compassion. Some German women deliberately sheltered Jewish children;why do we not concern ourselves more with the courage shown by those individuals?
Perhaps it is because we ourselves are unable to find the energy to investigate each case? Is it easier to conveniently categorise the 'enemy' as evil barbarians?
There's nothing new in all this of course, as Shakespeare has Henry IV say,
'Nothing can seem foul to those that win.'
Regards,
Spruggles. -
Message 50
Posted by caveman1944 (U11305692) on Monday, 15th March 2010
May I respectfully ask if you were ever in an army, Sleepysimplesimon?
Petaluma says it all in Message 12. When you're given an order, you jump to it. You may not like it, but you don't argue or sit around debating the issue. Maybe an anarchist army would work like that, but I suspect it wouldn't function very well - as an army
Scrub the floor with a toothbrush? Paint anything that doesn't move ?
Orders that must be obeyed are often enough belittling to those who obey.
I refused an order, and had I not done so, I would have been a nothing person. I refused again
nigh on a year later. Saigon the first, 1942, Thailand the second, 1943.
The first was to show me who was in charge, prisoner or not, but why just me and not the lot ?
I was growing up. Three days pay,( 2x3p) but stood there for the sentencing I was out of sight.
I sent for medals but chucked them in the bin.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.