"Just following orders" an excuse?

[italianstalion]

Ok I came up with this idea for a thread because of a post in another thread, which I am not going to quote or give any names to because I don't think that's fair. Anyway there are a lot of soldiers or other people in the army that when convicted of war crimes use the excuse "I was just following orders." I personally don't see this as a valid excuse. If you don't follow orders, yea you can be called a traitor and maybe put in jail but you can argue that the order was unjustifiable (for lack of a better word). I just want to see other point of views on this subject.

[scruffy221]

If the order was "unjustifiable" then any good trooper can just take the complaint to a superior officer, or whoever is next up in the chain of command. But sometimes, such as in house to house urban fighting, I'd be willing to bet that someone has time to think about an order to take out a house for example. They are just thinking like a human in survival mode, I am going to take out that house that people are shooting at me from. There might be people inside that don't deserve to die, and that's a tragedy but it happens sometimes. If they are charged with a crime I doubt that they would be convicted.

My opinion.

[ghs/wylax]

First of all there is a huge difference between a trader and a traitor. I think in certain circumstances, "Just following orders" is a valid excuse. Unfortunately, "Just following orders" can be very broad, and for that reason I think it is not a valid excuse against criminal charges. If you are ordered to kill innocent people and you do, you are still killing innocent people. There is no way around that.

[twin58]

Anyway there are a lot of soldiers or other people in the army that when convicted of war crimes use the excuse "I was just following orders."

Not since 1945.

[roycegracie47]

Not since 1945.

For that matter I highly recommend everyone read the book Ordinary Men if they can. It chronciles how the German Military decided that men who were too young or too old for service, weren;t too young or too old to be transformed from wartime civilian police forces into roving death squads. The Nuremburg Trials were not kind to many of these individuals who were pressed into such a service.

[italianstalion]

For that matter I highly recommend everyone read the book Ordinary Men if they can. It chronciles how the German Military decided that men who were too young or too old for service, weren;t too young or too old to be transformed from wartime civilian police forces into roving death squads. The Nuremburg Trials were not kind to many of these individuals who were pressed into such a service.
I was mostly talking about german soldiers

[flyersrule9733]

there really isnt an answer. if you are talking about the germans and the holocaust, then i believe that "just following orders" is not an excuse because you are killing many innocent people. if it has to do with peoples lives, then no it is not an excuse, but if it is something more minor, then sometimes it can be used, especially if the person would lose their jobs or more if they didnt follow orders.

[italianstalion]

but if it is something more minor, then sometimes it can be used, especially if the person would lose their jobs or more if they didnt follow orders.
But that's where court comes in, if its really something that goes against all morals then you can choose not to do it.

[twin58]

The Nuremburg Trials....

I was reading a terrific article in an old Washington Post Magazine along these lines a few days ago. I'll have to dig up a link to it. Oh, I found it.

Giving Hitler Hell (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101680_pf.html)

When Nazi decrees destroyed Arnold Weiss's family, leaving him abandoned, it would have been hard to imagine this powerless child one day returning to Germany to mete out a rough justice of his own

By Matthew Brzezinski
Sunday, July 24, 2005; W08

This is the story of a man who has stared evil in the eye and held the fates of mass murderers in his hands. It begins at a company picnic, where children are cavorting as their parents dine on healthful salads and low-carb entrees. This is appropriate, in a roundabout way, because alongside the theme of hard, brutal justice, this story also concerns the American dream.
....

Weiss thought of his father, his friends at the orphanage, his grandmother. The SS man had worked at the same two camps where she had been sent. He was only a lowly cog in the killing machine, and that meant he was of little value to intelligence headquarters in Frankfurt. Unlike Zander, he didn't have to be kicked up the intelligence food chain. In that sense, the man had been right about not needing to go into hiding. No one at Allied Command was particularly interested in someone of his status. But if he believed that his low rank would somehow spare him from justice, he was dead wrong.

"How did you do it?" I ask Weiss. "The kapos," he explains, "that's where we got the idea. We had seen what the DPs did to the kapos, and we realized they could do us a favor."

DPs, or displaced persons, were the survivors of death and POW camps -- Jews, Poles, Russians, Hungarians, refugees of virtually every nationality who either could not return home or no longer had any homes to return to. They numbered in the hundreds of thousands in Europe, and they were housed in huge temporary DP camps. Several such refugee camps, converted German Army barracks, were near Munich.

"We studied up a little on military law, and there was nothing on the books preventing us from delivering suspects for additional debriefing to the DPs," Weiss recalls. He says he's not sure where the idea originated, who first put it into motion, or how widespread it was. "Whoever first came up with this, I honestly don't know. I don't think they'd own up to it anyway."

While it was perfectly legal under military law to hand over suspects for further questioning to DPs, says Benjamin Ferencz, who was a lead U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals in 1945 and 1947, knowingly delivering suspects for execution was not. And of course the DPs were not interested in extracting information.

Ferencz, who today is 85 and lives in New York, cautions against making sweeping armchair moral judgments. "Someone who was not there could never really grasp how unreal the situation was," he says. "I once saw DPs beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?"

Ferencz -- who went on to a distinguished legal career, became a founder of the International Criminal Court and is today probably the leading authority on military jurisprudence of the era -- cannot specifically address Weiss's actions. But he says it's important to recall that military legal norms at the time permitted a host of flexibilities that wouldn't fly today. "You know how I got witness statements?" he says. "I'd go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone one up against the wall. Then I'd say, 'Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.' It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid."
....

Weiss remembers the panic in the SS men's eyes when they finally realized where they were being taken. "We never told them where they were going," he says. At the sight of the old German Army barracks, they grasped their fate. Some would try to cling to the jeep, but the reception committee would forcibly remove them. Weiss says he never looked back in the rearview mirror to see what happened next. Nor did he need to.

[italianstalion]

So says the monday morning quarterback...

If you dont think that your actions can be influenced by what the people around you are doing and telling you to do, look into the Milgram experiment. Or the Stanford prison experiment.

And if you think that you have a lot of room to talk about what is justifiable and what isnt justifiable in the military, you are living in ignorance.
you cant justify killing innocent people because "you were just following orders"

[Riot]

you cant justify killing innocent people because "you were just following orders" You can justify anything.

[Riot]

I can play this game too...
You CAN justify killing people because you were "just following orders"

Once again, look into the Milgram study and the Stanford prison experiment.

I have scientific studies that help support my argument. What do you have? Morals? Ethics?


Okay, I just want to argue.

[italianstalion]

I can play this game too...
You CAN justify killing people because you were "just following orders"

Once again, look into the Milgram study and the Stanford prison experiment.

I have scientific studies that help support my argument. What do you have?
I still dont see that as an excuse, at all. I read up on both the studies and really didnt have to because I knew before I even read them the basic idea of them. If you do the wrong thing, you did the wrong thing! As a human you have choices and you can take them or leave them. Just because you are unaware of the choices you have, doesn't mean you dont have them.

[moondog]

Just do well in school and save for college so you don't HAVE to "follow orders" like that...

[Riot]

Just because you are unaware of the choices you have, doesn't mean you dont have them. How are you supposed to take advantage of a choice you aren't aware of?

[MACDADDY]

if you know it is wrong, and you have to follow an order, why do it? id rather be called a traitor than kill innocent people that kill them and get away with it.

to sum it all up, you dont have to listen to them if its wrong.

[italianstalion]

How are you supposed to take advantage of a choice you aren't aware of?
you still have it though, that was what i was trying to get across.

[Riot]

you still have it though, that was what i was trying to get across. If you're not aware of a choice then you really don't have that choice, because you can't make a choice if you're not aware of it.

if you know it is wrong, and you have to follow an order, why do it? id rather be called a traitor than kill innocent people that kill them and get away with it.

to sum it all up, you dont have to listen to them if its wrong. Thank you for summing up two sentences.

[italianstalion]

If you're not aware of a choice then you really don't have that choice, because you can't make a choice if you're not aware of it.

Thank you for summing up two sentences.
ok I retract my statement until i can come up with a valid argument for that, but you do always have a choice even if it seems that one choice is a much better decison you always have the choice to not do anything and face the consequences. The guys in those experiments did what they were told because they feared the consequences but they still had the choice not to do anything.

[italianstalion]

Yes, the students in the Stanford prison experiment were so afraid of getting kicked out of an experiment that they tortured, humilitated, and abused their friends.

And the subjects in the Milgram experiment were so afraid of stopping and still getting paid that they decided to shock people until they stopped moving.

In both cases, the subjects were given an easy option out, yet they still did what they were told. It clearly shows that ones perception of acceptable and unacceptable as well as their choice to stop are clearly changed when given orders by an authority figure.
So they chose to keep doing what they were told, why does that make it an elligible excuse? They thought it was the right thing to do which is why they kept doing it. Just like Hitler thought it was the right thing to do to eliminate the Jews. Just because that's what he thought doesnt make him right. Are you saying Hitler is innocent because he thought he was doing the right thing?

Edit: Post 1200

[ML_LAX09]

How are you supposed to take advantage of a choice you aren't aware of?


That was an amazing post Riot.

[Riot]

So they chose to keep doing what they were told, why does that make it an elligible excuse? They thought it was the right thing to do which is why they kept doing it. Just like Hitler thought it was the right thing to do to eliminate the Jews. Just because that's what he thought doesnt make him right. Are you saying Hitler is innocent because he thought he was doing the right thing?

Edit: Post 1200 Justifiable and innocent are two totally different things.

[italianstalion]

Justifiable and innocent are two totally different things.
I understand that and that's why in my original post I wrote "for lack of a better word" because at the time the only word that I could think of was unjustifiable. Even so, is Hitler trying to eliminate all Jews "justifiable" because that's what he thought?

[Riot]

I understand that and that's why in my original post I wrote "for lack of a better word" because at the time the only word that I could think of was unjustifiable. Even so, is Hitler trying to eliminate all Jews "justifiable" because that's what he thought? Anything can be justified.

[italianstalion]

not with the "I was just following orders" excuse which is what this thread is about. I mean you may be able to come up with some extentuating circumstance where you might be able to pull it off as a possible excuse but overall, I can't think of anything where you can use the excuse.

[Riot]

not with the "I was just following orders" excuse which is what this thread is about. I mean you may be able to come up with some extentuating circumstance where you might be able to pull it off as a possible excuse but overall, I can't think of anything where you can use the excuse. I'd say the "I was just following orders" excuse is pretty legitimate. If the military is going to be effective, it's important that people aren't second guessing orders. I'd rather have an army that mindlessly followed orders than one that questioned everything.

[italianstalion]

I'd say the "I was just following orders" excuse is pretty legitimate. If the military is going to be effective, it's important that people aren't second guessing orders. I'd rather have an army that mindlessly followed orders than one that questioned everything.
so, opinions on WWII aside, the Nazi's did the right thing by following orders without thinking? As a soldier you have to be smart and be able to think quickly and evaluate the situation at hand in a split second. They aren't mindless, they need to think at critical moments to save their lives and many others.

[Riot]

so, opinions on WWII aside, the Nazi's did the right thing by following orders without thinking? As a soldier you have to be smart and be able to think quickly and evaluate the situation at hand in a split second. They aren't mindless, they need to think at critical moments to save their lives and many others. I was using two extremes, not saying that an ideal army is a mindless army.

And what kind of moments are we talking about? I'd say at a critical moment a soldier is better off doing what he's told as opposed to taking time questioning his orders.

Again, if you could please clarify the types of moments we are talking about, it would make my life a lot easier.

[italianstalion]

Ok, in a situation where a group of soldiers are about to raid a known insurgeone hideout and the Sergant is giving the order to move in and at the last second a soldier sees that on the other side of the door there is an ambush. If he doesnt argue the order and continues on then the soldier and all the soldiers who rush in are going to get killed. If he disobeys the order and tells the other troops to stop he saves lives. I know thats a horrible example, but I was just talking abroad in my last post, I wasn't talking about a specific situation.

By the way, even though they don't sound like it, all my post are meant to be respectful and polite. I am just arguing my ideas. I dont want anyone to get the wrong impression.

[Riot]

Ok, in a situation where a group of soldiers are about to raid a known insurgeone hideout and the Sergant is giving the order to move in and at the last second a soldier sees that on the other side of the door there is an ambush. If he doesnt argue the order and continues on then the soldier and all the soldiers who rush in are going to get killed. If he disobeys the order and tells the other troops to stop he saves lives. I know thats a horrible example, but I was just talking abroad in my last post, I wasn't talking about a specific situation. Obviously the right thing to do would be for him to tell the Sergeant what he saw, and let the Sergeant retract the order. That wouldn't be disobeying an order, it would be quick thinking.

By the way, even though they don't sound like it, all my post are meant to be respectful and polite. I am just arguing my ideas. I dont want anyone to get the wrong impression. Don't worry about it, you're not coming off as rude at all.

[Eclipse]

If someone is given an order, stricly military speaking, then failure to follow that order can result in a slew of punishments, the highest being court or discharge.

It becomes a serious question of ethics. If you were ordered to blow up a building with serious terrorist leaders in it, but the destruction of it would cause innocent lives to be lost as well...could you do it? If you don't, you potentially could cause more death of innocent people because the lives of terrorist leaders are spared, but if you do it, of course you would be the direct cause of loss of innocent lives.

I think that if you are ordered to do something, it is your duty. You knew the risks when you joined, and you basically lose your right to make decisions when you join the military because they are made for you. Your job is to carry them out, not to interpret them.

[italianstalion]

yeah true, but even so that was more towards the point of soldiers having to be able to think instead of just following orders

EDIT: this was aimed at riot's post

Even if you can get discharged you can take it to court for being unconstitutional (again for a lack of a better word). You aren't going to go to war on warcrimes for blowing up a builing and accidently hurtin civilians. I am talking about you purposely doing something that is immoral and saying that you only did it because you were told to.

[Eclipse]

I can't actually think of an excuse where you would be "Odered" to do something that was unethical or immoral...

[Riot]

I can't actually think of an excuse where you would be "Odered" to do something that was unethical or immoral... Weren't they ordered to torture those prisoners (and by torture I mean take pictures of)? I can't remember, I don't really keep up with current events.

[italianstalion]

I can't actually think of an excuse where you would be "Odered" to do something that was unethical or immoral...
Think about WWII thats all you have to think about. Or Vietnam (a little different but immoral nonetheless)

[Eclipse]

I don't think they were ordered no.

There is a difference between being ordered to do something, and continuing to follow orders in a situation where you could do something, immoral.

You would never be ordered to do something that could get you in trouble. No officer is ever going to say directly:

"Go blast that families brains out." or "Walk your squad into an ambush."

However, a situation could occur where you get put into a scenario that wasn't addressed in the initial orders. For example a situation where you are on a raid, and see the house you are about to bust into is full of children, or that there is an ambush awaiting. Of course you aren't going to continue and walk you friends to their death, or shower bullets on an innocent family. You would stop, pull back, and re-think your plan. Today's soldiers are not drones, its not "Hear orders, execute, kill" like some order a T1000 would carry out in Terminator. In fact they are taught to use their brains and think on their feet in given situation, and do what would make the most sense.

[SuperSully]

i believe the namburg trials said that it wasnt.

[italianstalion]

I don't think they were ordered no.

There is a difference between being ordered to do something, and continuing to follow orders in a situation where you could do something, immoral.

You would never be ordered to do something that could get you in trouble.

Oh so the German soldiers killed Jews because they wanted to? I don't think so. The Nazi's at the camps weren't ordered to work and execute Jews? Also, you dont think in Vietnam a Sergeant ordered a soldier to kill a little girl holding a box? You can believe what you want but I'm 100% positive that in that war orders were given that were totally immoral. I'm not saying I disagree with the orders or the act of following through with them, I'm just saying orders like that were given. There are Iraqis being tortured all the time on direct orders, they are unlawful but they are given. To think that orders like this aren't given would be very narrow minded.

[Eclipse]

Oh so the German soldiers killed Jews because they wanted to? I don't think so. The Nazi's at the camps weren't ordered to work and execute Jews? Also, you dont think in Vietnam a Sergeant ordered a soldier to kill a little girl holding a box? You can believe what you want but I'm 100% positive that in that war orders were given that were totally immoral. I'm not saying I disagree with the orders or the act of following through with them, I'm just saying orders like that were given. There are Iraqis being tortured all the time on direct orders, they are unlawful but they are given. To think that orders like this aren't given would be very narrow minded.

But what was the Nazi's soldiers alternative. Now your sort of taking your thread off a little bit. I don't recall any Nazi soldiers making excuses. Joining thw Nazi party was not much of a choice, join the military or what...be killed?

The fear of a man like Hitler is something we have not had to experience in our lifetime, and hopefully we will never. But beleive me when I say that in Germany, his word was life, and death. It was his way, or the highway...six feet under. Your talking about a world that existed sixty and seventy years ago, in a government that is nothing like ours. And yes, I do beleive many Nazi soldiers killed Jews because they actually beleived in what Hitler said.

Today it is a completely different world, there are no world dictators declaring war on religion. There are Terrorists declaring war on religion, but last time I checked, those men don't look for excuses when they kill thousands of people, they do it because they feel it is whats right.

[thepalehorse]

morales kick in after a while. so people who say no it just orders are just making excuses for their actions. i would rather die then do somthing that would haunt me forever.

[italianstalion]

How about the Namburg Trials? You still had a choice to not midlessly kill Jewish people even if it meant you had to flee the country or possibly be killed. Either way you have a choice and therefor "just following hitlers orders so i wouldnt be killed" is still and never will be a valid excuse in court.

EDIT: This was aimed at eclipse's post (his post was too big to quote)

[Eclipse]

Ha, I have a feeling no matter what is said we will never reach an agreement Stalion.

I guess alot of my viewing comes from some of the military backround in my family. In the end we have to decide if we are talking about a present day society, or a WW2 society because certainly things are alot different in the two of them, and the circumstances for following orders are as well.

[italianstalion]

Ha, I have a feeling no matter what is said we will never reach an agreement Stalion.

I guess alot of my viewing comes from some of the military backround in my family. In the end we have to decide if we are talking about a present day society, or a WW2 society because certainly things are alot different in the two of them, and the circumstances for following orders are as well.
I agree on the first point you made, and this is the exact reason I made this thread because a lot of people were saying that TLF was boring and there was nothing to talk about anymore and I figured I could get some arguments out of some people.
I still believe that whether or not there is pressure on you shouldn't dictate your right as a human being to make the right choice and even when you fall to pressure you have to suffer the consequences and not give an excuse blaming someone else for your inability to think.

[somrandomguy]

I'll just throw in a few points here:

1) The Stanford and Milgram experiments do not in any way justify the excuse of "I was just following orders." They merely showed how easy it is to get people to follow orders from an authority figure - just because it is a documented phenomenon does not in any way make it right.

2) I don't care if you're in the military or not, you are still a living, breathing human who can think for yourself. Ultimately, you alone are responsible for your actions. Someone else may have told you to pull the trigger, hit the switch, or whatever, but they did not do it, you did. You are ultimately responsible for your own actions, whether you like it or not. (That's speaking from the general second person, not to anyone specifically)

[italianstalion]

Oh I just raped and stole stuff from a bunch of Jewish people in the Ghetto but its aight I was told to by a higher up. they should just change the slogan for the military in some countries to "join the army, all the native woman you can rape".
I'm not saying that both cases were like that but people who rape and pillage need to be punished, they need to be put in prison but not exacuted because I have a problem with exacutions. The pain and suffering that foreign militaries have put native populations through is immense and these people did nothing wrong.

Thats why the I was just under orders thing shouldn't work
Ok, this is where Eclipse has a valid point. No General in the army is going to order a soldier to go rape someone. The soldiers you speak of are just careless and do these things on their own so the "I was just following orders" does not apply to this case

On a side note: Don't bring this up to a Jewish girl and use the German soldier as an example. Didn't know she was jewish and that most of her ancestors were killed in the holocaust DO'H!

[italianstalion]

Once again, I understand where you are coming from but I disagree. When you sign up for the Armed Forces you agree take full responsibility for your actions. You're thoughts may be blurred according to those studies but nonetheless you still have choices and if you make the wrong choice you take the consequences like a man and take responsibility for them.

Heres another example: If you go to work one day, lets say you work in the stock room at Best Buy and your supervisor says to you "I really need a gift for my son, would you grab an Ipod from the back for me?" you know that he will be mad at you if you dont so you get one for him and a day later you get fired because you were caught stealing. Your excuse is "I was just doing what he asked me to do." Do you think you will get your job back?

Your situation about the driver is totally different because it was an accident and he had no choices. He can't say "Oh, I am not going unconsious I have to drive." It was an accident and even though it was an accident and he couldnt help it, he could still be charged with man slaughter. I wouldn't agree with the ruling on any levels but it could happen. A soldier on the other hand doesnt follow orders "by accident," he chooses to follow the orders so he won't have to face the consequences of not following the orders. Unless they have past records of mental health problems or anything of that nature the whole "I wasn't thinking straight/ I plead Insanity" will not hold up in court. That is basically what you are implying with those studies and that would not work without past records of similar health problems.

[WClax17]

isnt just following orders the excuse that all the german generals used at the nuremburg trials after ww2? didnt we hang all of them? i dont feel that it is any different now. it doesnt matter who is commiting the crimes or who is telling them to. both people should be convicted because both should know the difference between right and wrong.

[kryptic]

Have you ever undergone military training before? Do you know what it's like to take military orders?

Military operators have books on ROE, and sometimes that doesn't cover all the bases. Now in possible life or death situation, will you act? or will you thumb through books to find the proper action?

You need to be more specific with your examples regarding the military. Military and war ethics are very complicated. I know, as a future officer, I'm schooled and being schooled heavily on honor and ethics.

Never forget, humans are humans. Not everyone is good and not everyone is bad.

[kryptic]

Take this for example- you will never, EVER hear a marine refer to himself as a soldier. Every time, without fail, a marine will call himself a marine. Never any other term. Why? Because thats what is imprinted in their mind. Much the same, they are taught to unconditionally follow orders.


The US Marines take pride in being a Marine, because they are finest fight force in the world.

[italianstalion]

That's not concrete evidence at all. It was done in science testing where the occupants knew it was a scientific experiment and went along. You can't prove that they would do that in real life situations. Scientists can do experiments to try to prove anything. Even if I did believe in those experiments being truthful, its all about fear. The "prisoners" were afraid of the "guards" and did what they were told and that doesn't make it right. Whether they were in their right state of mind or not they still did it and they are still people who can think on their own. Again making this argument only valid if the person succeeds in convincing the court that they are crazy.

On the Marines standpoint, if I was a Marine I would not call myself a soldier because you trained for the honor of being a marine and worked hard for that honor. Yea, they tell you that you are better than the regular soldiers but the truth is, you really are and Marines take pride in that. On that subject since we were kind of talking about WWII think about the Battle of Midway (I think thats the one) where the US sent in a small amount of Marines who took control of the island. They could never have done that with regular infantry troops. The marines take pride in everything they do and there is no problem with that.

Also, my analogy was fine, it implied that the person did it because their superior told them to and they knew that there would be consequences if they didnt just like if Hitler told a German soldier to execute X amount of Jews in a concentration camp the soldier even if he knew it was wrong, might do it because of fear, which goes back to my first point.

[CTLaxer]

The US Marines take pride in being a Marine, because they are finest fight force in the world.

OOOOOOOORAAAHHHHH

[italianstalion]

The US Marines take pride in being a Marine, because they are finest fight force in the world.
just beat me to it

[italianstalion]

I read the experiments right after you posted them, what did i get wrong? The guards were supposed to impose authority and fear and thats what they did. If you were in that situation even in a scientific experiment you would still be a bit afraid especially once the guards started to get into the actual role of playing guards. Just because I think of a it a different way doesnt make me wrong.

Let's say you're right, their minds were clouded in the experiments by an authority figure. I understand that. It does not make them robots. No matter how you put it they are still people with a thought process, they do whats wrong, and it's their fault. Yes it could be blamed partially on the commander but mostly on the person following through with what they are being told to do. Don't you remember in early school doing something at getting yelled at by the teacher for it and saying "But he told me to"? That never worked and it still doesnt work.

[tomtom]

For most cases it is. When soldiers don't follow orders, they, or the man next to them, die. Its that simple.

[kryptic]

Also, my analogy was fine, it implied that the person did it because their superior told them to and they knew that there would be consequences if they didnt just like if Hitler told a German soldier to execute X amount of Jews in a concentration camp the soldier even if he knew it was wrong, might do it because of fear, which goes back to my first point.

There is always a fear of breaking an order.... there's also consequences, and alternate chains-of-commands that could be used. But the Germans seemed to be indifferent to the Final Solution...




Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

^Those last lines were the basis of most of our English class my past year.

[Meade Lacrosse]

Yes, the students in the Stanford prison experiment were so afraid of getting kicked out of an experiment that they tortured, humilitated, and abused their friends.

And the subjects in the Milgram experiment were so afraid of stopping and still getting paid that they decided to shock people until they stopped moving.

In both cases, the subjects were given an easy option out, yet they still did what they were told. It clearly shows that ones perception of acceptable and unacceptable as well as their choice to stop are clearly changed when given orders by an authority figure.

The Milgram experiment was a bit different. In that case, they had a tangible reason to not commit the atrocities. You have a point with the Stanford experiment, but that only proves humans will continue to follow orders in tense situations.

But just because a few students at Stanford tolerated immoral behavior as acceptable, doesn't mean that its right.

[italianstalion]

You arent even close on either one. I dont think you understand at all what the experiments were or what exactly happened.
If I got them wrong, then tell me what I was wrong about. Either way I don't think it makes a difference because you are taking the phsycological approach and that will not hold up in court without a history of mental health problems. All I wrote about the experiments is that in the Stanford Prison experiment the prisoners started to fear the guards and both groups started taking the roles seriously. How was I wrong? That was the first thing I read about it. Please Explain.

[Meade Lacrosse]

If I got them wrong, then tell me what I was wrong about. Either way I don't think it makes a difference because you are taking the phsycological approach and that will not hold up in court without a history of mental health problems. All I wrote about the experiments is that in the Stanford Prison experiment the prisoners started to fear the guards and both groups started taking the roles seriously. How was I wrong? That was the first thing I read about it. Please Explain.

I hope you're right about the Stanford experiment, because thats what I, and my entire AP Psychology class got out of it.

[italianstalion]

I understand the experiments, they still knew it was an experiment. The people started actually taking the roles just like I said in my last post. It has nothing to do with the excuse "I was just following orders." You can say "He didnt mean to follow orderes" but in the end it doesnt matter the person still followed the orders and therefor did something wrong and they can't pin it on someone else. Like I said in my last 4 posts, those studies are showing the phsycological possibilities but again, like I said before unless there is a history of those kind of things in that person it will not hold up in court. Just ike that guy who kidnapped and killed that little girl in FL recently and he plead insanity and tried to sit there and color in coloring books the whole time. It doesnt work because if it did, no one would ever go to jail.

[cjm3113]

If you were ordered to do something, then you should do it. If it turns out to have been a mistake, the person who gave the orders is at fault, not the soldier.

Case closed.

[italianstalion]

If you were ordered to do something, then you should do it. If it turns out to have been a mistake, the person who gave the orders is at fault, not the soldier.

Case closed.
So the Nazis are innocent, Hitler is the only one at stake?

[Meade Lacrosse]

If you were ordered to do something, then you should do it. If it turns out to have been a mistake, the person who gave the orders is at fault, not the soldier.

Case closed.

So if you're Superior tells you to shoot someone in the head, do you do it? What if this person is a stranger. Do you still kill this person, knowing their someones mother/father, brother/sister, friend, husband/wife?

I would never kill just because I was ordered to. Only heartless people do that.

[italianstalion]

This is absolutely rediculous. You cant stop making up things off the top of your head and making multiple assumptions. Not only that, but its clear that the studies mentioned went clean over your head. Im done with this.
What did I get wrong? Please explain to me why every single one of your posts aimed towards me were more of a flame than anything. I explained what I got out of the experiment and Meade backed me up and said thats what it was about and he studied it in his AP class. How am I wrong?

[leader52]

have to say i would never ever ever shoot the innocent if i was ordered to. thats just disgusts me that ppl do. i think id shoot the general or the person ordering it if they keep killing the innocent ill sacrifice my body to save 3 million innocent, no doubt in my mind it is not valid what-so-ever.

[twin58]

Take this for example- you will never, EVER hear a marine refer to himself as a soldier. Every time, without fail, a marine will call himself a marine. Never any other term. Why?

Because he's not in the Army. This is the same reason that railroad engineers do not refer to themselves as flight attendants - they aren't.

[tkdlaxer]

you cant justify killing innocent people because "you were just following orders"


In most of their cases (the german soilders) they would have taken the place of the people they were killing if they chose not to follow orders.

[cjm3113]

So the Nazis are innocent, Hitler is the only one at stake?

So if you're Superior tells you to shoot someone in the head, do you do it? What if this person is a stranger. Do you still kill this person, knowing their someones mother/father, brother/sister, friend, husband/wife?

I would never kill just because I was ordered to. Only heartless people do that.

Yes. What if you were ordered to kill someone, and if you refused, Hitler himself had you killed. The Tables turn now don't they? Whether or not they are a stranger means nothing, your superior may know a lot more than you about any person and or situation. If they give you an order you must follow it. And if you really believe that about heartless people, I hope you have no intentions of joining our armed forces.

have to say i would never ever ever shoot the innocent if i was ordered to. thats just disgusts me that ppl do. i think id shoot the general or the person ordering it if they keep killing the innocent ill sacrifice my body to save 3 million innocent, no doubt in my mind it is not valid what-so-ever.

When did this become about shooting innocent people? It is about following an order, you may or may not know if that person is guilty or innocent. You have someone in higher command that gives you an order and you follow it.

[faceofflax15]

The US Marines take pride in being a Marine, because they are finest fight force in the world.
Damn straight! I've been observing this thread since it started, and hadn't yet involved myself. But, they are not and will not be responsible for their actions. The Stanford and Milgram expirements showed how people listen to orders. It's a plain reaction of a human to listen to superiors.

If marines, solidiers, anyone in the armed forces, didn't listen to orders, someone is going to die on our side that shouldn't.

[ColtsLax]

Ok, need to jump in here and talk about WWII. Not everyone in Germany was a Nazi, not everyone in the German armed Forces was a nazi. Very few were actually involved with the Final solution.

Most of the people in the Heer(Army) were regualr guys who were drafted. They had no idea that jews were being systematically slaughtered. Even the SS, most people think they ran the concentration camps, so every one of the SS guys are Nazi. Thats wrong. 1 division the 3rd SS Totenkoff was incarge of the SS. They were the only guys to wear the black Allegenarmie suits, ect. The regular SS is compariable to our Rangers of Marine, groups of elite infantry and tank divisions handed the hardest job, they regularly fought our Paratroopers during WW2 and most US vets respect those guys.

So yes, "following orders" is a legit excuse for your action. You are not an individual, you are a part of the whole, a collective, like a beehive. As a private you ask no question, thats the job of your compnay Sarge or Lieutenant. when privates question orders, people die.

Now if ordered to attack a location, and a private(PFC, Corporal, Tech, Specialist, other low ranks) discoveres new intel that changes the mission, then they report to the CO and proceed from there. We need to distinguish officers from EM. Kryptic can tell you this more then i can, an officer has more burden on him then rifleman #1 in 1st Squad, 2nd platoon.

have to say i would never ever ever shoot the innocent if i was ordered to. thats just disgusts me that ppl do. i think id shoot the general or the person ordering it if they keep killing the innocent ill sacrifice my body to save 3 million innocent, no doubt in my mind it is not valid what-so-ever. good luck, so they kill you on the spot and find someone to do it, so your sacrafice is in vain. there is always someone willing to follow orders unquestioned.



Also, comparing WW2 tactics and infantry structure with the modern incarnation of such is like comparing naval tactics with infantry tactics, totally different.

I'll leave with this little quote

"ours is not to question why, ours is but to do and die"

[italianstalion]

Like I said before, you have a decision, even if you are going to die by choosing not to do something, you still have the option not to do it. Instead of blaming someone else, man up and accept the consequences because you had a choice whether you considered other options or not.

[cjm3113]

Like I said before, you have a decision, even if you are going to die by choosing not to do something, you still have the option not to do it. Instead of blaming someone else, man up and accept the consequences because you had a choice whether you considered other options or not.

In a 'perfect world' this MIGHT be true, but in a perfect world there would also be no fighting or wars right?

I'm sorry italianstalion, I am pretty much on the same page with everything you say on this forum, but you are being absolutely ridiculous at this point.

[CTLaxer]

Before anyone else is allowed to speak on this subject, you are required to read Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning. Once finished, you will be allowed to resume your conversation.

http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-9793721-8808134?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181151836&sr=8-2

[ColtsLax]

Like I said before, you have a decision, even if you are going to die by choosing not to do something, you still have the option not to do it. Instead of blaming someone else, man up and accept the consequences because you had a choice whether you considered other options or not.
your trying to apply laymens logic to the US Army. When you sign up, enlist, you sign a little form, and that literally signs your soul over to the US Government.

You dont have a choice when given a direct order by a superior officer. There is not a whole lot of wiggle room here

[pole15]

You dont have a choice when given a direct order by a superior officer. There is not a whole lot of wiggle room here

You always have a choice. While the point is accepted that "when you sign up, enlist, you sign a little form, and that literally signs your soul over to the US Government," that doesn't mean you cannot have moral fiber anymore. Presumably, one enlists in the armed forces under the pretense that the institution is dedicated to better the world and protect the innocent. Soldiers are trusting their own moral descisions to another person, most likely someone high in command. If they do something 'wrong,' it is both the responsiblity of the person who ordered the action and the person who carried it out. Ignorance to what you are doing is not an excuse. It comes down to the fact that you can never trust someone to make a moral descision for you, especially the government.

Also, ponder this. If martial law is declared and an officer tells you to shoot a man, without a reason, would you do it? This man is the law, and he is telling you to do something. Are you telling me that you should do it without question? And if, perhaps, that man was completely innocent - would you be free of all blame and responsibility? No, your adherence to the order shows an agreement to carry it out. Because you did not question it and understand what you are doing is no excuse. It is better to die than to make such a decision.