Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Hello my question is at the Nuremberg Trials did'nt the Nazi

Page 2 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

29 Oct 2012, 6:41 pm

Danimal wrote:
American soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. However, a soldier is not obligated to follow an illegal order from an officer. Illegal orders are orders to commit murder, torture, steal, and other such illegal acts.

The oath is, in fact, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the legal orders of those appointed over you. In Basic Training in the '80s, we had a course in Military Law; one of the things covered was what constitutes an illegal order, and how to phrase one's refusal so as not to violate other sections of the UCMJ (conduct unbecoming, for instance).

It is understood that failing to carry out an order may well result in a court-martial, and that stating the order to be illegal is an affirmative defense. It is best, if refusing the order, to insist it be given as a written order first, so there's a record of what exactly was ordered to be done.

Part of the reason we received those instructions was indeed as fallout from the Nuremberg trials. Those trials also inspired Stanley Milgram to conduct the infamous Milgram Experiment, intended to prove that humans would not simply carry out such horrific orders. (Sadly, they proved the exact opposite - the majority of the subjects, when given orders to torture a victim, would carry those orders out, believing the device they controlled actually did cause the victim increasing amounts of pain. It appears that shoving the responsibility onto one's superiors gives the psyche a certain amount of insulation, as it were, from guilt for acts committed.)


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

30 Oct 2012, 12:15 pm

nominalist wrote:
The precedent established by the Nuremberg trials is that following orders is not a legal defense for war crimes. In other words, insubordination, whatever its consequences, is preferable to committing a war crime.


Which is quite interesting, because if we do suppose that a German soldier would have refused to take part in the genocide, that soldier would have been murdered and then the massacre would go on. So, much like the UN it's a lofty ideal but suffers in-action.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

30 Oct 2012, 12:23 pm

Fnord wrote:
piroflip wrote:
The victors of any war choose the rules and write the history books.
One day it will be the bully boy USA's turn.

Were it not for the "Bully Boy", most of Europe would be goose-stepping to Deutsch classes ... or the showers ...


Actually the Soviet Union did more to prevent that than anyone.

America's contribution to the war is grossly exaggerated. Usually by themselves.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

30 Oct 2012, 12:25 pm

thomas81 wrote:

Actually the Soviet Union did more to prevent that than anyone.

America's contribution to the war is grossly exaggerated. Usually by themselves.


The US provided the equipment, the Soviet Union the disposable manpower. Turns out that the Soviet strategy of "Let them shoot us until they run out of bullets" was quite effective.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

30 Oct 2012, 12:30 pm

By the time America had entered the war the outcome on the Eastern Front had been more or less decided. It was only a matter of time before the red army started pouring into Berlin.

Its highly questionable whether Germany would have launched an invasion of Britain with, or without America's assistance. Granted, American involvement probably acted as a catylyst so ended the war by a couple of years but I'm less convinced they affected who won and lost.

I think the USA only entered the war to claim their victory spoils ie. a stake in west Germany and later on nazi rocket technology.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 Oct 2012, 3:56 pm

thomas81 wrote:
By the time America had entered the war the outcome on the Eastern Front had been more or less decided. It was only a matter of time before the red army started pouring into Berlin.

Its highly questionable whether Germany would have launched an invasion of Britain with, or without America's assistance. Granted, American involvement probably acted as a catylyst so ended the war by a couple of years but I'm less convinced they affected who won and lost.

I think the USA only entered the war to claim their victory spoils ie. a stake in west Germany and later on nazi rocket technology.


Well, we got attacked by Germany's ally, Japan, and that's why we got into the war.
Also it ought to be remembered, Hitler declared war on America after Pearl Harbor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

30 Oct 2012, 5:17 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
By the time America had entered the war the outcome on the Eastern Front had been more or less decided. It was only a matter of time before the red army started pouring into Berlin.

Its highly questionable whether Germany would have launched an invasion of Britain with, or without America's assistance. Granted, American involvement probably acted as a catylyst so ended the war by a couple of years but I'm less convinced they affected who won and lost.

I think the USA only entered the war to claim their victory spoils ie. a stake in west Germany and later on nazi rocket technology.


Well, we got attacked by Germany's ally, Japan, and that's why we got into the war.
Also it ought to be remembered, Hitler declared war on America after Pearl Harbor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The Pacific theatre was more or less a seperate war.

The United States was terrified of the Soviet union having a foothold in Western Europe in a post war scenario so they wanted to be there to supervise the establishment of the buffer zone.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

30 Oct 2012, 5:21 pm

The role of America in WW2 prior to Pearl Harbor was a lot like the role of the guy who doesn't actually throw a punch, but slips his buddy brass knuckles.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

30 Oct 2012, 5:25 pm

TM wrote:
The role of America in WW2 prior to Pearl Harbor was a lot like the role of the guy who doesn't actually throw a punch, but slips his buddy brass knuckles.


I'm not sure what you mean. The UK manufactured all or most of its own war vehicles and weapons.

The Lee Enfield rifle, the Bren Gun, the Sten sub machine gun, the Spitfire, Hurricane fighter, Lancaster Bomber, Mosquito fighter bomber, were all British manufactured.

Oh yes, the UK also invented radar.

The Luftwaffe was more or less defeated after the battle of Britain so Hitler had to give his invasion plans a second thought. That was without American assistance.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 Oct 2012, 5:36 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
By the time America had entered the war the outcome on the Eastern Front had been more or less decided. It was only a matter of time before the red army started pouring into Berlin.

Its highly questionable whether Germany would have launched an invasion of Britain with, or without America's assistance. Granted, American involvement probably acted as a catylyst so ended the war by a couple of years but I'm less convinced they affected who won and lost.

I think the USA only entered the war to claim their victory spoils ie. a stake in west Germany and later on nazi rocket technology.


Well, we got attacked by Germany's ally, Japan, and that's why we got into the war.
Also it ought to be remembered, Hitler declared war on America after Pearl Harbor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The Pacific theatre was more or less a seperate war.

The United States was terrified of the Soviet union having a foothold in Western Europe in a post war scenario so they wanted to be there to supervise the establishment of the buffer zone.


There was a definite connection between Germany and Japan. But to be sure, Roosevelt sympathized with Britain, and saw this as an opportunity to aid Churchill. I think we've become so cynical in the modern world as to assume our leaders have only been motivated for mercenary or self serving reasons. I think Roosevelt saw Hitler as a genuine threat to free societies, and was looking for a reason to get involved to help. At the time, though, a great number of Americans either were pro-isolationist, or even sympathized with the Axis, and so he couldn't just ask the Congress to declare war from the onset.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

30 Oct 2012, 5:36 pm

thomas81 wrote:
TM wrote:
The role of America in WW2 prior to Pearl Harbor was a lot like the role of the guy who doesn't actually throw a punch, but slips his buddy brass knuckles.


I'm not sure what you mean. The UK manufactured all or most of its own war vehicles and weapons.

The Lee Enfield rifle, the Bren Gun, the Sten sub machine gun, the Spitfire, Hurricane fighter, Lancaster Bomber, Mosquito fighter bomber, were all British manufactured.

Oh yes, the UK also invented radar.

The Luftwaffe was more or less defeated after the battle of Britain so Hitler had to give his invasion plans a second thought. That was without American assistance.


Look up "Lend-Lease" 31 billion to the British, 11 billion to the Soviet Union.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

30 Oct 2012, 5:43 pm

TM wrote:
Look up "Lend-Lease" 31 billion to the British, 11 billion to the Soviet Union.


I've read it. Sounds more like a business arrangement than a act of benevolence. Apparently Britain had to repay the money by allowing the US to use British air bases rent free and any remaining materials post war had to be destroyed.

Explains why we have USAF bases in the UK even to this day.

Apparently the only way President Roosevelt was able to get it ratified was by selling it as an act of self-preserverence, "America and the UK have mutual defence interests".

Which is right in a way, if Germany had won you'd have 2 hostile superpowers to contend with. The nazis made no secret of their disdain for American values.

3 if Imperial Japan had won.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

30 Oct 2012, 8:26 pm

I have a hard time believing WWII could of been won in Europe without any American contribution. The Nazi advance was only stopped like 20 miles from Moscow, the difference between victory and defeat wasn't that much so no US support would of completely changed the war. At the very least the Soviets wouldn't of steamrolled threw eastern Europe like they did. Chemical and biological weapons could of probably been used and many more people would of died, Europe may be uninhabitable for decades. It's a horrific scenario.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

30 Oct 2012, 10:01 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
By the time America had entered the war the outcome on the Eastern Front had been more or less decided. It was only a matter of time before the red army started pouring into Berlin.

Its highly questionable whether Germany would have launched an invasion of Britain with, or without America's assistance. Granted, American involvement probably acted as a catylyst so ended the war by a couple of years but I'm less convinced they affected who won and lost.

I think the USA only entered the war to claim their victory spoils ie. a stake in west Germany and later on nazi rocket technology.


Well, we got attacked by Germany's ally, Japan, and that's why we got into the war.
Also it ought to be remembered, Hitler declared war on America after Pearl Harbor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The Pacific theatre was more or less a seperate war.

The United States was terrified of the Soviet union having a foothold in Western Europe in a post war scenario so they wanted to be there to supervise the establishment of the buffer zone.


and for good reason, it was the antithesis of our Americanism, and if our system produced liberty and freedom, the opposite would (and did) produce the exact opposite results. The soviets would end up using their losses as an excuse to dominate all of eastern Europe, had America not entered, communism would overrun all of Europe.

It was our view at the earlier half of our nationhood that we are here to protect the world from the uncivilized Europeans, and when war ended, it oddly enough ended up our task to rebuild it. The western half progressed, the east did not.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

31 Oct 2012, 12:20 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:

and for good reason, it was the antithesis of our Americanism, and if our system produced liberty and freedom, the opposite would (and did) produce the exact opposite results. The soviets would end up using their losses as an excuse to dominate all of eastern Europe, had America not entered, communism would overrun all of Europe.

It was our view at the earlier half of our nationhood that we are here to protect the world from the uncivilized Europeans, and when war ended, it oddly enough ended up our task to rebuild it. The western half progressed, the east did not.


Well, to hell with your 'Americanism'. Thats all I can say about that. No other country in the world neither asked for it or needed it. Americanism doesnt have a monopoly on freedom or liberty either. The freedom of the landlord and of the factory owner is the servitude of the common man. Your sacred americanism isn't going too well right now for the 40 million Americans without health coverage and the burgeoning number of white collar americans being forced to sell their homes. If the legacy of hurricane Katrina is anything to go by I feel for those poor souls in New York right now.

Speaking as a European I think it is a pity that America got involved in Europe between that 1945-1991 period. Had the UK and the other European countries stuck with the USSR the result would have been opposite. America and Europe didnt truly progress that much. There just became a more pronunced gap between the haves and have nots, giving a facade of progress. The little progress the common man made was through pro-socialist organised labour and resistance to the very 'Americanism' you proudly beat your chest about.

I often feel that during that time we were backing the wrong horse. Now we have to deal with uncivilised bankers and plutocrats that are bringing us to hell in a handcart.

Now what? Its the 'communist' Chinese who are progressing while America and Europe is regressing. Its come full circle.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

31 Oct 2012, 2:39 pm

thomas81 wrote:
I often feel that during that time we were backing the wrong horse. Now we have to deal with uncivilised bankers and plutocrats that are bringing us to hell in a handcart.

Now what? Its the 'communist' Chinese who are progressing while America and Europe is regressing. Its come full circle.


The "communist" chinese didn't make much progress at anything until they ditched communism, went capitalist and started looking up to the U.S. If we dealt with the Soviet Union we would have had to deal with those same bankers only dressed in uniforms, with the ability to send you to a gulag, torture you, with the same plutocratic tendencies.

Once people like you start to realize that its the natural order of things and that people who want power and material goods will get it regardless of which system is in place, the sooner we can move on from this nostalgia for a soviet union and a socialism which is abhorred by many of the people who actually are familiar with it.

There is a reason why people were largely fleeing from the Soviet states to the West. I do understand the motivation for wanting such a system though, for the people who are unable, unwilling or incapable of taking advantage of the capitalist system, a system where they have to do nothing and get everything is merely a function of their self-interest, even though they like to present it as being better for "everyone".