When is a War Criminal not a War Criminal-Scenario

[Scott Smith]

well over 17 soldiers from the 101st Police Reserve Battalion refused to execute illegal orders to shoot the Jews of Jozefow, Poland, and were assigned to other duties.

It was certainly morally wrong but it was not an execution of "illegal orders." As HaEn noted, Orders Are Orders, Sir.

Exactly.

If a sovereign nation pronounces murder to be legal, it is legal.

Sorry, Roberto, but war is a "legal" and historically-common way for sovereign nations to resolve their conflicts. War is killing, but murder must be defined as illegal killing.

In the military a lot of orders are things that we don't want to do and may even violate our sense of morality, but orders are still orders. A person must obey his orders unless they are illegal as defined by a higher authority than the commanders giving the orders. For example, it would obviously be illegal to order soldiers to rape people, which is against military and civilian law and not a standard military weapon; but it is not so clearcut about "killing people and breaking things," because that is what soldiers do.

If a sovereign nation rules that a certain group of people does not deserve to live and will thus be bumped off wherever found, killing as many members of that group as possible is the lawful thing to do.

Interesting point of view.

Hear the screws dropping to the floor?

Sovereign nations are the "Law," my pious Member-of-the-Bar. They decide what is lawful and what isn't, including how to fight wars, and especially, who is the enemy.

Anyway, Law and Morality are two different concepts.

Something might be morally-wrong and legal, and something might be illegal and not morally-wrong. It all depends upon the definitions. The definition of what is "lawful" is made by the State and the military in wartime.

If the government wants me to napalm a village full of innocent people, that may be morally-wrong. It may also be an "illegal order," depending on how military-law is determined. But morality and the law do not necessarily coincide. I know that is hard for lawyers to accept.

I wouldn't want to be in a position where I was ordered to undertake military operations that I belived to be morally-wrong, whether "legal" or not.

[Roberto]

well over 17 soldiers from the 101st Police Reserve Battalion refused to execute illegal orders to shoot the Jews of Jozefow, Poland, and were assigned to other duties.

It was certainly morally wrong but it was not an execution of "illegal orders." As HaEn noted, Orders Are Orders, Sir.

Exactly.

If a sovereign nation pronounces murder to be legal, it is legal.

Sorry, Roberto, but war is a "legal" and historically-common way of sovereign nations resolving their conflicts. War is killing, but murder must be defined as illegal killing.

Of course the deliberate butchering of unarmed non-combatants, whether related or not to the conduct of war, is perfectly legal if sovereign state authority so decides.

In the military a lot of orders are things that we don't want to do and may even violate our sense of morality, but orders are still orders. A person must obey his orders unless they are illegal as defined by a higher authority than the commanders giving the orders. For example, it would obviously be illegal to order soldiers to rape people, which is against military and civilian law and not a standard military weapon; but it is not so clearcut about killing people and breaking things, because that is what soldiers do.

Ach so.

It is illegal to order soldiers to rape people because that is against military and civilian law (national or international, Mr. Smith?)

But it's perfectly legal to order them to shoot masses of naked women and children into great big batches of meat, blood, bone splinters and brain matter, whether within or (as in the cases in question) outside the scope of military actions.

The screw keeps rolling ...

If a sovereign nation rules that a certain group of people does not deserve to live and will thus be bumped off wherever found, killing as many members of that group as possible is the lawful thing to do.

Interesting point of view.

Hear the screws dropping to the floor?

Sovereign nations are the "Law," my pious Member of the Bar. They decide what is lawful and what isn't, including how to fight wars and who is the enemy.

And they thus may decide that a completely harmless ethnic or social group, men, women and children, is the "enemy" and thus to be slaughtered whereever encountered, right?

Anyway, law and morality are two different concepts.

When it comes to sex, they are.

When it comes to killing, they are not.

Something might be morally wrong and legal, and something might be illegal and not morally wrong. It all depends upon the definitions. The definition of what is "lawful" is made by the State and the military in wartime.

If the government wants me to nape a village full of innocent people, that may be morally wrong. It may also be an "illegal order," depending on how military-law is determined. But morality and the law do not necessarily coincide. I know that is hard for lawyers to accept.

Cut out the crap, Mr. Smith.

Butchering a village full of innocent people is an offense according to the military law of most nations and a crime according to the criminal law of the same.

Where it is not, it is still a violation of internationally acknowledged legal principles protecting civilians against acts of violence in wartime, not merely something "morally wrong".

To the extent that national military and criminal law condone or fail to sanction such practices, they are not in accordance with codified or customary international law, which prevails over national legislation, and thus illegal.

That's how it is under the current situation of international law.

That's also how it was at the time the killings in question were committed, under the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions either as codified or customary international law.

I know that's hard for warlord-minded apologists of unlimited state power to accept, but it's about time these folks get used to the idea.

I wouldn't want to be in a position where I was ordered to undertake military operations that I belived to be morally-wrong, whether "legal" or not.

The execution of a perfectly legal order.

Smith would loathe to be among the executors, but he would consider it his legal duty to shoot as ordered.

Ain't that so, Mr. Smith?

[Karl da Kraut]

I'm afraid discussing with Mr. Smith will be fruitless. He keeps talking about a sovereign state and it's omnipotence, but doesn't assign any rights to the individual. He has the mentality of ant. Mr. Smith won't be able to understand you.

[Roberto]

I'm afraid discussing with Mr. Smith will be fruitless. He keeps talking about a sovereign state and it's omnipotence, but doesn't assign any rights to the individual. He has the mentality of ant. Mr. Smith won't be able to understand you.

Source reference:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... ng-pit.ref

Perfectly legal killings, according to Smith – at least as long as the killers were following superior orders.

Why, then, does he deny that they happened?

Why does he write stuff like what is quoted below?

Here we have a monumental accusation made against Gentiles in general and Germany in particular, that harms the German people--except of course their leaders, and perhaps also the plastic-spoon generation of neo-Germans--and it harms all of the Palestinian people.

Thu May 09, 2002 6:58 am Post subject: POINTLESS.
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 338adb8cad

[Karl da Kraut]

???????????????????
I didn't criticize YOU, Roberto.

[Dan]

It is a question of English idiom. You didn't understand Scott or Roberto. Roberto is agreeing with you, and Scott is talking above your head. It has to do with the nature of the source of law, you see.

[Richard Miller]

I find these propaganda photos truly fascinating.
Here we have three guys allegedly looking over a pit of corpses, which on the surface appears to support mass murder allegations.
A few points about this amateurish attempt at atrocity imagery.

First, the men are casting what appears to be a strong shadow, the direction of which makes it appear to be relatively early in the morning, about 9-9:30 AM I would guess, however not one of the corpses in the "white row" are casting any shadow at all.
With the sun at that low angle, deep shadow lines should be quite apparent.
Some of the darker corpses appear to be casting somewhat of a shadow, however the direction does not match the shadows of the men, their shadow looks to be coming from what would be about 11:00 on a clock face.

One seam in the photo is quite apparent just to the left of the men.
Comparing the darker portion on the left, to the lighter portion on the right, one can easily detect two different exposures. The darker dirt and mounds have much greater detail than the lighter dirt on the right.
How did the artist get the white/dark corpses to look as though they are laying together?
Simply by overlaying one negative on top of the other and cut through both at an inconspicuous juncture. Then affix clear tape over the seam, and use a soft pencil to "color" the seam. When the photo is exposed, no seam!
I am not attempting to diminsh the fact that these people are dead, only that poor attempts at atrocity photography, impeaches the credibility of those who promote these as fact.

[David Thompson]

Here's how the discussion has gone so far:

Andy from the Shire posed an interesting question, namely: "When is a war criminal not a war criminal?" He gave a thought provoking example of a soldier who was threatened with death and harm to his family if he didn't execute a collection of Jews and partisans.

I responded that under Andy's hypothetical, "Hans" was not a war criminal because he acted under duress. I also noted that, from testimony and statements of members of German killing units, there were few, if any, actual examples of his hypothetical. I asked if he or anyone else was aware of instances in which a German soldier was executed or threatened with death for refusing an order to participate in the mass murder of civilians.

There were a number of responses, ranging from "How naive can we get?" to comments that, if a person who refused murder orders wasn't killed, he might be transferred or have his promising career spoiled. No one had an example of a German soldier who was executed or threatened with death for refusing an order to participate in the mass murder of civilians.

I gave a large number of examples from WWII shooting units in which persons had refused to obey such orders without any adverse consequences. The example showed that defendants who claimed that they were only following orders had, in fact, frequently disobeyed superior orders with which they didn't agree.

Some responses to this point were along the lines of: "Orders are orders." Well, an answer is an answer, and an evasion is an evasion. If orders are orders, how is it that the einsatzgruppe defendants claimed to have disobeyed superior orders that didn't relate to illegal executions? Consistency is consistency.

Other responses talked about the legality of orders: "If a sovereign nation pronounces murder to be legal, it is legal." Well, this particular instance involves the mass executions of civilians by German military and security forces during WWII. The executions were carried out on the basis of an unwritten, secret order from Hitler. Many Germans were not aware of these killings until after the end of WWII.

So, how is this murder order the act of a "sovereign nation"?

I don't recall reading about Hitler submitting the order to the Reichstag for enactment. I've never read about a "Ja" or "Nein" plebescite on the subject. What is it about the murder order that is legal? What is it about this secret, unwritten murder order that makes it a duly enacted expression of the German national will?

Yeah, I hear the screws dropping to the floor.

[witness]

For example, it would obviously be illegal to order soldiers to rape people, which is against military and civilian law and not a standard military weapon; but it is not so clearcut about killing people and breaking things, because that is what soldiers do.

I don't get it.Why rapings would be "obviously illegal " but murdering non-combatants would not ?
To me it is quite clearcut.Murdering civilians is "obviously illegal".
"What soldiers do" is fighting the enemy soldiers.

[Scott Smith]

I'm afraid discussing with Mr. Smith will be fruitless. He keeps talking about a sovereign state and it's omnipotence, but doesn't assign any rights to the individual. He has the mentality of ant. Mr. Smith won't be able to understand you.

Why the attack, Karl? Are you having a problem with English as has been suggested? Perhaps the discussion can be more fruitful for you if I pretend to agree with whatever you say.

[Roberto]

I find these propaganda photos truly fascinating.
Here we have three guys allegedly looking over a pit of corpses, which on the surface appears to support mass murder allegations.

Guess what we have here now: another "Revisionist" photo expert squealing "forgery".

I'm not an expert in photography and will therefore limit myself to questioning whether such observations can be accurately made on what is obviously a very poor quality print of a photograph, which barely if at all allows for establishing whether the contrasts of light and shadow are compatible with an authentic picture or suggest some tampering, photomontage or the like.

I wouldn't be surprised if Miller is neither and just shooting some knowledgeable-sounding bull in the hope that there's no one among the audience who knows about photography, by the way - it's one of the tricks these people apply to fool suckers.

I am not attempting to diminsh the fact that these people are dead, only that poor attempts at atrocity photography, impeaches the credibility of those who promote these as fact.

The people are dead.

They are naked and mostly women and children.

They are lying belly down on top of each other, just as they would after an Einsatzgruppen mass execution as the same have been described by those who witnessed them.

The event pictured in the photograph, like countless others of its kind, is presumably documented not only by the photograph, but also by eyewitness accounts, depositions of participating perpetrators in court and official reports from the units that carried out the massacre, like the Operational Situation Reports that the Einsatzgruppen sent to the Reichssicherheitshauptamt on an almost daily basis.

So what exactly is the true believer trying to tell us?

The same picture, a different print:

[witness]

No one had an example of a German soldier who was executed or threatened with death for refusing an order to participate in the mass murder of civilians.

So there are no examples of severe consequences for a person who refused to take part in the executions.
At the same time I know that among the executioners there were many cases of resorting to alcohol and drugs, cases of nervous breakdowns and even suicides.

The sheer horror of these actions took its toll on the killers,however.
Despite all of the indoctination,the sensory impact of the activity overwhelmed defensive rationalizations.Grisly dreams involving the sights
and sounds of slaughter were the most frequent symptoms reported by the Einsatzgruppen personnel....
In reaction, many of the killers turned to heavy drinking or drugs or arranged transfer to different units.Others as General Nebe' chauffeur
,committed suicide;still others,such as SS General von dem Bach-Zelewsky,suffered nervous breakdowns requiring hospital treatment.

It turns out to be quite a paradoxical situation.On one hand there were no
substantial consequences for a person refusing to take part in killings.
On the other hand the "job' was debilitating to the extend of being unbearable.
Which allows only one logical explanation,The participants of the executions were so brain-washed by the Nazi propaganda that they considered it to be their moral DUTY.
Duty is duty even if not a pleasant one.

[Scott Smith]

For example, it would obviously be illegal to order soldiers to rape people, which is against military and civilian law and not a standard military weapon; but it is not so clearcut about killing people and breaking things, because that is what soldiers do.

I don't get it.Why rapings would be "obviously illegal " but murdering non-combatants would not ?
To me it is quite clearcut. Murdering civilians is "obviously illegal".
"What soldiers do" is fighting the enemy soldiers.

Not a bad question at all. Rape and murder are both against the military criminal code; however, I've never heard of anyone making a case that there was a "military or security reason" for soldiers to rape. On the other hand, soldiers murder (or actually kill, which is different) every day; that's what they do; they "kill people and break things."

The question is merely justifying it in terms of military need (and sometimes pretending that noncombatant civilian loss-of-life is unintentional instead of punitive) or for some security rationale. Of course, it is psychologically easier to kill civilians from a distance by dropping bombs or whatever, but it is still the same result.

In WWII, civilians were targetted by both sides; but judging by some of the responses on the board, only the Jewish noncombatants were worthy of human life. It was okay therefore to kill German children in their beds or incarcerate the Japanese-American citizens. After all, they started the war, right?

And it was deliberate anti-Semitism on an individual and social level as well, wholly apart from the context of war, according to the Brownings and the Goldhagens. Nobody was "just following orders" but actually volunteered for this Festival of Dionysus. And legally there is no slippery-slope; every case is clearcut and obvious, even to laymen (according to Roberto and Karl).


(Lots of sarcasm here for those of you challenged by English.)

Roberto has even resorted to his stock body-stinkpile photos if some of you are still not convinced.

[Roberto]

For example, it would obviously be illegal to order soldiers to rape people, which is against military and civilian law and not a standard military weapon; but it is not so clearcut about killing people and breaking things, because that is what soldiers do.

I don't get it.Why rapings would be "obviously illegal " but murdering non-combatants would not ?
To me it is quite clearcut. Murdering civilians is "obviously illegal".
"What soldiers do" is fighting the enemy soldiers.

Not a bad question at all. Rape and murder are both against the military criminal code; however, I've never heard of anyone making a case that there was a "military or security reason" for soldiers to rape. On the other hand, soldiers murder (or actually kill, which is different) every day; that's what they do; they "kill people and break things."

Yeah, sure. Locking the population of whole villages into barns and setting the same on fire is part of their daily work.

So is lining up naked women and children in front of ditches and shooting them inside, or having them lie on top of each other for a shot in the head.

The question is merely justifying it in terms of military need (and sometimes pretending that noncombatant civilian loss of life is unintentional instead of punitive) or for some security rationale. Of course, it is psychologically easier to kill civilians from a distance by dropping bombs or whatever, but it is still the same result.

Military need or not, there are rules, both in the national legislation of most countries and in international law, that forbid the deliberate killing of unarmed non-combatants. Whether by bombs from the air or by rifles and machine guns on the ground.

In WWII, civilians were targetted by both sides; but judging by some of the responses on the board, only the Jewish noncombatants were worthy of human life. It was okay therefore to kill German children in their beds or incarcerate the Japanese-American citizens. After all, they started the war, right?

No, my dear Smith, nobody is saying that. Your opponents adhere to the view, supported by international law, that the deliberate killing of unarmed non-combatants is illegitimate even if it serves a military necessity, regardless of who the perpetrators and who the victims are.

But as you brought it up, I would expect you to consider the killing of German and Japanese civilians by Allied bombing attacks as legitimate exercises of the power of sovereign nations.

Do you see them as such?

Or are you back to your old double standards?

And it was deliberate anti-Semitism on an individual and social level as well, wholly apart from the context of war, according to the Brownings and the Goldhagens. Nobody was "just following orders" but actually volunteered for this Festival of Dionysus. And legally there is no slippery slope; every case is clearcut and obvious, even to laymen.

Don’t try to change the subject, Mr. Smith. Your contention was that if these men followed superior orders, whether they liked what they did or not, their actions were legitimate because the ruling power of a sovereign nation had declared them to be.

Do you stand by that, my dear boy, or do you not?

Roberto has even resorted to his stock body-stinkpile photos if some of you are still not convinced.

The photograph was accompanied by a comment and question that is still standing:



The execution of a perfectly legal order.

Smith would loathe to be among the executors, but he would consider it his legal duty to shoot as ordered.

Ain't that so, Mr. Smith?

[witness]

In WWII, civilians were targetted by both sides; but judging by some of the responses on the board, only the Jewish noncombatants were worthy of human life. It was okay therefore to kill German children in their beds or incarcerate the Japanese-American citizens. After all, they started the war, right?

In case of the Jews, this group was singled out and targeted specifically.
In case of the"German children in their beds" we talk about indiscriminate killing where these German children were not a target per se.