Wait, so why isn't "just following orders" a legitimate defense?
Because you have a right to not follow an order that breaks international laws
>>18475822They wanted to punish and disempower their defeated enemies in a way that legitimized the international order they wanted to create.>>18475828Those "international laws" didn't exist at the time. And even if they did, it's objectively insane to demand that someone prioritize abiding by vague and distant "international laws" over direct orders from superiors in their own country that they swore loyalty to.
>>18475822It wasn't only because they lost
>>18475822It is legitimate, but if you want enemy combatants in the future to be afraid to defy your laws, as >>18475847 puts it, you have to say, there is no excuse for breaking our rules, not even if you are subject to another authority. If America ever got beaten (LOL) then they could put our guys on trial for whatever crimes they wanted to convict them of, and it would serve as a way of both legitimizing their new world order and demoralizing its opponents. Ideology is eternal. This also means that its moral values are eternal and retroactive.
>>18475847>Those "international laws" didn't exist at the timeYes they did, Germany even signed both Kellogg-Briand and the Hague Conventions.
>>18475822>youre honor I cant be convicted of this crime because ugh...Im an NPCIts not a legitimate defense because its just a childish removal of all agency as a human from you. This line of reasoning is literally no different from blaming "socioeconomic factors" for Jamal doing a drive by and shooting a 7 year old kid.
>>18475856Oh yeah, because the average German soldier was fucking studying the articles of the Hague Conventions... nigger.
>>18475859>those laws didnt exist!>yes they did>w..well...IT STILL DOESNT MATTER!Reminder that naziboos are basically super leftist nigger murder defenders. Just remove all agency from the subject to absolve them of guilt, and place the blame on others for "pushing" them into committing the horrible crime.
>>18475828>follow orders>break international laws and if you lose the war they will hang you>don't follow orders>maintain international laws but get shot for treachery right then and thereSounds to me the only logical option is to follow the orders and then do everything in your power to make sure you don't lose the war.
>>18475860Nope. I agree that international law should have a place in conducting and declaring warfare. But it’s the same shit I had to read about in my law courses, one example I can remember offhand is a U.S. naval officer being punished for seizing a ship leaving Haiti. At one point or another you need to stop punishing ignorant people for doing as they are told and start educating them.
>>18475864This wasnt a case of draconian UHM AKSHULLY bullshit legal jargo law that it takes a team of lawyers to decipher, thus making it jibberish to the common soldier anon and you know that. General Wilhem Kietel, the top commander of the German military in the invasion of the USSR, issued a rule of engagement to all of his officers to then distribute down to all the grunts that said to just shoot anyone, uniformed soldier or peasant civilian, perceived as a threat to them. Adolf Hitler himself issued a decree to execute on site any commando officer captured. Both of these are very clearly war crimes to basically everyone. They knew full well what they were doing.
>>18475822>Roosevelt warns hitler to not target civilians or there will be consequences >hitler literally laughs and makes fun of him in one of his speeches and decimates Europewell, who was laughing in the end?
>>18475847>Those "international laws" didn't exist at the time.u wot m8
>>18475900uhhhhh yokai feet
>>18475822It is if you win.
>>18475822An army in the field is the only legitimate legal defense against a vindictive conqueror.>>18475828you do actually and men at Nuremburg and Tokyo were let off because it was a legitimate defense to say "I would have been in danger otherwise".This didnt work for the men they wanted dead, but it did work for men who merely broke international law but never offended jewish or mutt sensibility.
>>18475900>Roosevelt warns hitler to not target civilians or there will be consequencesWhen?Americans basically only targeted civilians lol.Even today in the war America and Israel lost against Iran, they opened it up with a double tap strike on a school for little girls.the israelis and their dogs still managed to lose lmfao
>>18475872I doubt it.
>>184759331938 and 1939, hitler used this to make a comedic show during one of his speeches >Americans basically only targeted civiliansofc they did, the meaning of this threat was something like>don't wage a dirty war, because if you do, we will do it as well, and since we are stronger, we will destroy you exactly what happend after
>>18475822>>18475828I often wonder whether the Allies could have persecuted most of them for just violating positive Weimar law that was still in the books.One should remember that the Nazis never formally abrogated the Weimar constitution and even with the enabling act, murder was still illegal according to the active German penal code and at least the premeditated killing of persons on German soil (not just citizens) without prior legal proceedings should constitute murder according to written positive law at the time (I am not sure whether these laws apply on occupied territories).It’s not like the Nazis ever bothered to write the Führerprinzip and their racial extermination policies into positive law.This might have been a more solid case, instead of just relying on “international law” and some weird ex-post-facto shit.
>>18475856>Kellogg-Briand pactHonestly, no one was respecting this.Unironically this treaty is still in effect.And unironically no one is still not respecting it.
>>18475828how would they even know what those international laws are?
>>18475828>international lawsThose international laws would been really useful during the scramble for Africa or when the usa expanded west ward...
>>18475822You chose a side now die with it.
>>18475822Morality is more than just series of laws and rules.
Should have scientistmaxxed, they would have hired them and given them a comfy job
>hehe might makes right, thats just the nature of war>NOOOO YOU MONSTER HOW COULD YOU DO THIS THATS SO UNFAIR AHHHHThis is every single naziboo thread
>>18475972NCOs and officers are required to know what their soldiers may and may not do, inform them clearly, and discipline them when they break the law. Why do you think war crimes trials are always directed at officers and NCOs and never at grunts? Command responsibility is a 15th century concept, it's as old as the printing press.
>>18475828>do as we say or we'll torture you and your family to death>ummm you could have just said no lol
>>18476064And many people did say no, and those that didn't say no tortured the ones that did say no.
>>18476079>>18476064what part of>provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him is your favourite part to ignore on a Tajik snowboarding imageboard?
>>18475822Would you be fine with a Jew killing you because a book commanded it?
>>18475856>>18475970The United States broke the pact by waging wars of aggression in the Guarantee Countries/Banana Republics as it was being signed.The head of the Marine Corps in WWII was physically in Nicaragua or somewhere shooting up the presidential guard and doing a Maduro on the head of state.You should always assume Anglos are using diplomacy as a means to further war and assume as well Anglos are always at war with you.no Anglo state has EVER made a good faith treaty.Anglos uniquely among Europeans have never kept a treaty to another power unless it benefitted them more than it hurt them.Indian wars.Crimean war.Anglo Afghan war.If it benefits the Anglo, he will break the treaty.If you have no treaty with an Anglo state, assume it is spying on you.>but everyone spiesNo they fucking dont.Historically speaking the vast majority of countries didnt pour 5% of their GDP yearly into spy networks on countries they considered their allies, Anglos do because Anglos are hyper-individualists geopolitically.They are vikings.For normal countries, War is a means to conduct diplomacy, you go to war to gain a better status quo.For Anglos, diplomacy is a means to conduct war, you engage in diplomacy to hurt your enemy and fortify yourself.Anglo will to power is excessive and extreme, if they ever produce a Caesar it will be the Anti-Christ because if its not the Anti-Christ I dont even know if Biblical Prophecy can stand up to Anglo will to power.>but theyre weak gay liberalstrue, however look at the will to power among weak gay liberals, look at how even a hint of racism will make Anglibs go absolutely ballistic and justify reasons you have no right to life or property.Third Worlders who screech about White people are mentally colonized by Anglo will to power btw.Thirdies think theyre getting one over on White people by being spiteful mutants, the reality is their ancestors were friendly to other races, even when wronged by them.
>>18475822Because then you have two levels of "don't commit war crimes">don't do war crimes of your own invention>don't obey orders that are war crimes>don't order war crimes>stop your soldiers from doing war crimes
>>18475822The soldiers should have just said no to the nazi regime and gotten their families sent to the camps. What pieces of shit, amirite?
>>18476541there are no records of german soldiers being punished with anything harsher than a relocation to a different unit if he refused to murder civilians, Blaskowitz only punishment for open protesting against killing Poles, Jews and Soviets civilians was just a relocation to secondary positions
>>18475822Because the Allies believed that law "is objective", and laws only enforce it. What is known is nonsense, because any law can be interpreted as you want.
>>18475822Because the guys you posted were the ones giving the orders.>>18475847>>18475857>>18476104>>18476572Git gud at war. Especially ones you start.
>>18475828You meant a duty.
