"Were German soldiers allowed to refuse orders..." Topic

….to commit war crimes during WW2?

"I've seen this said a lot lately and it seems just completely BS. I'm sure there was a law that said soldiers were allowed to say no, but I have some severe doubts that it was ever actually applied in real life during WW2.

If I was in the Wehrmacht and was given an order to execute a family of partisans, communists, or Jews, would I have been allowed to say "No" without any punishments…"
Main page
link

Saying no probably send you with Sven Hassel and his budies… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

No

So you get punished. Integrity.

Yeah, I highly doubt anyone would say no.

It was my understanding that they found very few cases of German soldiers being punished for refusing to be involved in the executions of partisans, communists, or Jews etc. I was investigated as it was used as a defense at Nuremburg.

This is from my readings of Langley Russell, Deputy Judge Advocate General (United Kingdom) to the British Army of the Rhine in 1945and one of the chief legal advisers during war-crimes proceedings, for both the Nuremberg trials and the Tokyo tribunal

Hitler's infamous ‘Commando Order' contained this paragraph;

I will hold all Commanders and Officers responsible under Military Law for any omission to carry out this order, whether by failure in their duty to instruct their units accordingly, or if they themselves act contrary to it.

Was anyone punished for not following this order? I don't know. Several were punished after the war for carrying it out though.

I'm afraid I can't recall the specifics but I do recall an incident where a soldier in a firing squad executing civilians, as a reprisal for partisan attacks, refused the order. he was executed himself.

The answer is no.

It would be considered a legal order by the tribunal that followed. If you got that far. Late war you would likely be shot on the spot by the officer or strung up as an example.
Very few soldiers went that route. What with it being almost certain suicide I think that's fairly understandable.

There were a few instances were regular army officers contrived to avoid first killing and then also handing over prisoners to the gestapo in respect of the commando order.
At least one man was allowed to escape.
I don't know what consequences there were. Explaining to the Gestapo how Hitler's order was illegal? Nope. Bad plan.

I think in the early war you could apply to be transferred out a death camp. At that time they were concerned about the feelings of their men and how the German public might take things.

There's also some research has been done on Pervitin.
During ww2, pretty much every nation dealt out stimulants so their soldiers could keep going longer.
Pervitin was the stuff the German army used.
It's similar to crystal meth.
As well as keeping you awake through that night attack it also makes you callous aggressive and generally sucks all that not-wanting-to-kill-innocents right out of you.
Use of this stuff was routine enough it could well go some way to explain readiness of the common german soldier to follow those illegal orders.

Double No

There is a famous episode of a General refusing to sack a estate by a order from Friedrich the Great, he was sacked and and a freecorp did the job. He never regretted it, but was punished nevertheless.

My understanding was that it wasn't that unusual and the standard response was transfer. Most of the officers knew that the Commissar Order, Barbarossa Decree, Night and Fog Decree and the Guidelines for the Conduct of the Troops in Russia were all illegal orders.

In September 1941, both Helmuth James von Moltke and Admiral Wilhelm Canaris wrote memos pointing out to the OKW that the order of July 17, 1941 was illegal under international law

By the last year of the war discipline in the German Army was ferocious. I recall reading in Max Hasting's book "Armageddon" that something like 15,000 German soldiers were summarily executed by their officers in just one year. No trial, just pow.

Usually yes. Guy who decline to shot my father wasn't punished at all.

There were always eager volunteers since involvement with "Sonderaktions" was payed with extra money, extra free time, promotion etc.

jstor.org/stable/1429971

By the last year of the war discipline in the German Army was ferocious. I recall reading in Max Hasting's book "Armageddon" that something like 15,000 German soldiers were summarily executed by their officers in just one year.

But most of those cases were probably due to some other reason than for refusing to participate in war crimes…

True, but if there was an 'obey or die' sort of atmosphere already in place, it would tend to cover any sort of order in any sort of situation.

While "obeying orders" wasn't a valid defence, the allies did recognise the idea that threat against soldier or his family. Not sure if it was a defence or a mitigating factor

The thing is, even if it's an option to refuse the order (hell, an OBLIGATION these days), there's still a very strong "follow the orders/law" in the German cultural psyche today, let alone the German cultural psyche in the 1940s.

Need to get to the German car registration bureau to get new license plates? They don't drive their car to the office (even though the office needs to see the car). In the US, even a grumpy police officer having a really bad day is likely to let that slide.

Officer 101: any order you need to point a gun at a soldier to get him to follow is almost certainly illegal.

The thing is, even if it's an option to refuse the order (hell, an OBLIGATION these days), there's still a very strong "follow the orders/law" in the German cultural psyche today, let alone the German cultural psyche in the 1940s.

I think that applies in most armies still today. Soldiers are taught to obey orders. "We were following orders" was the defence of the US soldiers accused of torturing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.

Yes, and it was decided at Nuremburg that "ve vere only followink orders, Herr Judge" is NOT a valid defense.

US troops are also taught to ignore or disobey orders that are dangerous to the unit as a whole.

The catch is, if you disobey an order, you had better be right and able to prove that it's an illegal order.

Submariner example: An auxiliaryman was in Machinery Two, keeping an eye on the Electrolytic Oxygen Generators while they were making oxygen. We call the EOGs "bombs" because one has blown the entire keel out of a submarine before, they have hydrogen and oxygen at 2000+psi under 2000+amps at 450+volts DC. That's fuel and oxidizer plus an ignition source. The only thing preventing an earthshattering kaboom is the lack of an uncontrolled chemical reaction.

A new junior officer was walking through the space, and told the auxiliaryman to do something other than watch the EOGs. Enlisted man said, "Yes sir, I'll get it done." Unspoken was "later". Some time passes, same JO comes back through, sees whatever it was still not done. Yells at the enlisted man, who replies, "Yes sir, I will get it done." Again, "later" is unspoken. More time passes, JO comes back, and demands that the enlisted man do whatever it was RIGHT NOW. Enlisted man says, "No sir, I will not." JO gets really bent out of shape, calls the enlisted man's chief to the space. Chief hears the story, looks at the JO and calls the Engineer. Engineer arrives, hears the story, and proceeds to rip the new junior officer a new one in front of the enlisted (which is almost never done).

Because the JO was trying to distract a watchstander from his critical duty, that made the JO's order (I think it was to tidy up the area) illegal. Because the order was illegal, the enlisted man was correct in disobeying the order.

That's a sorry tale. Everyone is in the wrong to a degree.

US troops are also taught to ignore or disobey orders that are dangerous to the unit as a whole.

That is different to disobeying orders that violate human rights though. What are they taught about that? Regardless it doesn't seems to have been effective at Abu Ghraib.

US troops are also taught to ignore or disobey orders that are dangerous to the unit as a whole.

Apparently not.

link

What about an order to participate in a dangerous mission? Can the military legally order one to go on a "suicide mission?" You bet they can.

In October 2004, the Army announced that they were investigating up to 19 members of a platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company based in Rock Hill, South Carolina, for refusing to transport supplies in a dangerous area of Iraq?

Can they be punished for this? They certainly can. An order to perform a dangerous mission is lawful because it's not an order to commit a crime. Under current law, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

@Deep Horse: Yes, the auxiliaryman should have told the JO that he'd get on that as soon as the EOGs were powered down. But submariners are used to people who understand that you don't screw around something called a bomb in normal conversation (and even in the Interior Communications Manual).

Also, "I'll get it done" always has an unspoken "just not right this second" attached to it. I was taught that in boot camp. If the JO wanted it done right that second, he needed to say so (and that order would have been wrong, as discussed).

Finally, the only time it is ever appropriate to rip someone a new one in front of other people is when it's a safety-critical item.

=====
Now.

Refusing an order to transport supplies can be inferred to be endangering others (what do you call a Soldier out of ammo? Dead.) A mission might require some level of personal risk to protect others.

Accepting an order to do anything but watch the EOGs is directly and immediately endangering the ship and the crew. I am not joking about how an EOG exploded and blew the keel out of a submarine. Hasn't happened in a long time, but has happened. (It's looking like the Argentine sub went down due to water on the batteries causing an explosion. That's usually because the salt water cracks into hydrogen and oxygen, and then the hydrogen explodes)

It appears WWII German soldiers were allowed to disobey orders … only once …

I think that applies in most armies still today. Soldiers are taught to obey orders. "We were following orders" was the defence of the US soldiers accused of torturing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.

I know from my experience, you are only required to follow/obey lawful/legal orders. We were trained to identify what is a lawful/legal order.

However, as we see like sometimes happens, certain things don't always work or occur as they are supposed to on the battlefield, it appears.

Not that I'm justifying or excusing it, only attempting to add context/possibly trying to explain it.

And e.g. My Lia, Abu Graib, etc., were anomalies and not common place, SOP or policy …

What about an order to participate in a dangerous mission? Can the military legally order one to go on a "suicide mission?" You bet they can.

Obviously you have to look at the overall situation, etc. The 343th QM was another "anomaly", IMO. E.g., If I was told to drop my whole Platoon from an aircraft in flight without parachutes. I'd have to disobey that order and very much most likely not be punished for it.

Lion in the Stars

obviously you have never registered a car in Germany!

Nobody wants to see your car in the registration bureau!!!

Legion, your ‘no parachutes' example is clearly ridiculous and certainly not a legal order.

And e.g. My Lia, Abu Graib, etc., were anomalies and not common place, SOP or policy …

With respect to Abu Ghraib and the violation of prisoners human rights there is, as I understand it, a considerable amount of evidence that points to it NOT being an isolated incident and was indeed policy, not just in Iraq, but at Guantanamo etc.

Legion, your ‘no parachutes' example is clearly ridiculous and certainly not a legal order.

REALLY ?!?!?!? Glad we always had parachutes on then ! Clearly my comment was hyperbole … Us Airborne guys have a unique sense of humor …

With respect to Abu Ghraib and the violation of prisoners human rights there is, as I understand it, a considerable amount of evidence that points to it NOT being an isolated incident and was indeed policy, not just in Iraq, but at Guantanamo etc.

Of the hundreds of thousand of troops deployed and involved only a very small percentage committed such acts. That is what I meant by anomalies … But I was not there … so …

Of the hundreds of thousand of troops deployed and involved only a very small percentage committed such acts. That is what I meant by anomalies … But I was not there … so …

Only small numbers of German troops in WW2 were involved in running concentration camps of the millions committed. Does that make it an anomaly?

Please let's not try to make moral equivalencies … We all know what some did in the concentration camps and what occurred at e.g., Abu Graib was "wrong". And let's not play the numbers game in what was an anomaly, etc. Again … all of that was very wrong …

But I don't think you can really compare the two, etc. Save they were both "wrong". And if we push the envelope with this line of discussion, some one may end up in the DH …

And I know this for a fact, at no time was I trained or did I train anyone under my command to commit anything like a war crime or crimes against humanity, etc. We were trained to do just the opposite. But as we know in wars horrible things happen. That does not excuse it or justify it … it only recognizes it occurs … sadly …

Some may also find comparing US Troops to Nazis may not only be a stretch of the truth. But insulting … For one reason my Father fought the Nazi as a US Infantry SGT. And was WIA, that effected him the rest of his life …

But at no time IMO can anyone realistically compare Abu Graib or Gitmo with what occurred at Nazi concentration camps, a IJFs' POW camp, etc., etc. If for no other reasons than magnitude and intent, IMO.

I said nothing about morale equivalency. I was merely pointing out that the number of people involved in something illegal is not a yardstick for how serious it is. Dismissing it with a hand wave as an anomaly didn't seem an appropriate response for what, as far as I can tell, was a serious problem in US detention centres and a matter of policy not the actions of an isolated few.

Clearly my comment was hyperbole … Us Airborne guys have a unique sense of humor …

Then perhaps you should indicate that through the use of punctuation or a blue grin, because otherwise who could tell? After all, you were able to do so with this

REALLY ?!?!?!?

Here is what I know. When I received my training as an officer it was made abundantly clear I had not only a right but a duty to disobey an unlawful order. At the same time it was made crystal clear that I was accountable for my actions and that if I disobeyed an order which was later shown to be legal I could expect to pay the consequences. We were given numerous examples of both legal and illegal orders. But in reality many orders are not clear cut at the time they are issued. Officers, and NCOs know the dilemma and recognize the dangers. It comes with the job. If you don't wish to be put in such a precarious position then leadership in the military is not for you.

From the article posted above:
"So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve the commission of a crime."

Unfortunately the differences are not always so clear cut.

Then perhaps you should indicate that through the use of punctuation or a blue grin, because otherwise who could tell? After all, you were able to do so with this

I stand corrected …

I said nothing about morale equivalency. I was merely pointing out that the number of people involved in something illegal is not a yardstick for how serious it is. Dismissing it with a hand wave as an anomaly didn't seem an appropriate response for what, as far as I can tell, was a serious problem in US detention centres and a matter of policy not the actions of an isolated few.

I was not dismissing anything. But based on my experience and training the numbers were small AFAIK. Regardless … as I said both situations were "wrong" … And many in the US Chain of Command were punished. But please don't lump all US military troops with Nazis …

And many in the US Chain of Command were punished.

Actually very few were punished and no officer served any time in a penal facility. The longest anyone served for Abu Ghraib was 6.5 years. Most got much less.

But please don't lump all US military troops with Nazis …

Once again no one has.

When absolute perfection is the standard by which any institution is judged, not one will ever pass the test.

B

You are certainly correct Blutarski. Given the size of the US military is approximately 2,250,000 (1,430,000 active duty and 818,000 Guard and Reserve) I am constantly amazed there aren't many more egregious events. The fact they are very much the exception speaks for itself.

Fred … it seems our difference comes down to numbers … or what does many, few, etc. actually define. We can agree to disagree … and move on … I guess …

I agree with both Blutarski and Marc33594 on this topic. I guess they see what I mean by an "anomaly", i.e. Not the norm, etc., …

When absolute perfection is the standard by which any institution is judged, not one will ever pass the test.

Institutions are also judged on how they respond when things go wrong. Judged on that basis the response to Abu Ghraib was very poor. At first denial, then when proof in the form of photographs emerged blaming it on a few rogue elements. Finally when evidence of a deliberate policy and wider involvement emerged a fairly cursory investigation. A couple of officers in the chain of command got demotions or administrative punishments and about a dozen low rankers got prison sentences, only 2 of which were over a year, and dishonourable discharges. Considering the alleged offences included unlawful killing, rape, sexual and physical assault it is understandable that it generated a lot of anger in the Arab world. As an outside observer it looks like a whitewash.

Yes and as I said, what occurred there was very much wrong. And not the manner in which 99% of US Military units or members act. Or should … And yes the entire incident was handled very poorly.

that it generated a lot of anger in the Arab world.

It only added to the hatred of the US and not only by the Mid East.

As an outside observer it looks like a whitewash.

And again … that is what many outside critics would say, whether it is justified or not.

Admittedly … This incident was not the US Military's finest hour. And AFAIK, measures were taken to insure this type of thing wouldn't happen again …

That is probably as close as I'll get to your opinion of this incident, Fred … For better or worse …

" A couple of officers in the chain of command got demotions or administrative punishments and about a dozen low rankers got prison sentences, only 2 of which were over a year, and dishonourable discharges. Considering the alleged offences included unlawful killing, rape, sexual and physical assault it is understandable that it generated a lot of anger in the Arab world. As an outside observer it looks like a whitewash."

Nonsense, you have completely misrepresented the judicial consequences of Abu Ghraib.

No officers or senior enlisted at all were punished for the offences that occurred at AG.

They were punished because they did not know what was happening, and did not stop it.

There was absolutely no evidence presented that senior people ordered, encouraged, or even condoned what occurred.

Revisionist history already….

"US troops are also taught to ignore or disobey orders that are dangerous to the unit as a whole."

Nonsense again. Certainly people use their common sense, and certainly stupid orders have a way of being misinterpreted, but no one is ever told "You can disobey any order you think is dangerous" (whether to you individually or your unit as a whole).

Good points with all that Tuscaloosa. AFAIK and IMO that is all accurate.

Revisionist history already….

Not really too surprising, I've seen it here and in the media before. Especially if there is a little anti-US, etc., bias, etc. But generally that sort of thing will occur at times, sometimes too often … Even if bias does not come into play …

@Tuscaloosa: I was told to disobey orders that would result in the immediate death of personnel or danger to the ship (particularly when we weren't in combat).

I'd still get court-martialed for it, but 'doing X would kill Petty Officer Jones' would likely see me acquitted.

I was told to disobey orders that would result in the immediate death of personnel or danger to the ship (particularly when we weren't in combat).

is somewhat different to your initial statement of

"US troops are also taught to ignore or disobey orders that are dangerous to the unit as a whole."

So which is it, are all US troops taught this, or was it only you that was told this?

Again, we were told we should/could disobey an unlawful/illegal order/directive. But as noted you better be sure about it. For obvious reasons. And of course report all war crimes/crimes against humanity, etc. But really … that sort of thing pretty rarely comes about AFAIK.

Now Lion being a Submariner, he may have been given a little different guidance on the whole thing. Being a sub crewman and Grunt in the line generally have some different situations to deal with. E.g.

" … orders that are dangerous to the unit as a whole."

That sort of thing probably occurs/happens a little more frequently with Infantry or Tanks. E.g. clearing IEDs/mines, crossing a minefield, [hopefully never having to] cross open ground/no cover/in the wide open, clearing a village room by room, etc., etc. And there are SOPs, tactics & techniques, etc., that limit the "danger" of those sort of missions, etc. But still most can be pretty "dicey" generally, I'd think, IMO …

Ensigns can be pretty stupid. If a junior officer gave a stupid order most enlisted people with a few years under their belts could avoid doing it one way or another and be assured senior officers would agree with them, after all a stupid ensign gave it. That's different from being ordered to toss a prisoner over the side for example, or being ordered into a flooding compartment to destroy top secret documents.

I've heard the same about 2LTs … But seriously Murvhill you made some very good points. Most/many who have served generally understand that many "actions" in some cases are "situational" and not always black & white.