I don't think anyone was convicted for merely following orders, let alone not staging an uprising. Hell, some allegedly bad actors got off because they argued that they were just following orders.
I also think that no one here should be falling for the fable that any country in the modern West is a 'democracy'.
A strange statement, as that is what many people in Germany and elsewhere were essentially convicted of, including the very case in discussion.
Which Nuremberg cases are you talking about?
Regardless, you miss my point: a legal and moral framework was and is applied post-hoc to even the most powerless of people, such as a low ranking guard now more than a century old.
I'm arguing that this is inconsistent with the Nuremberg framework. I am not aware of such a case from that time. (I'm also not sure if the article was a correct representation.)
This old man's existence is like late medieval Europe discovering an Odin-worshiping pagan in their midst. That simply will not do and he must be dealt with.
It's certainly strange. Adenauer reintegrated a lot of unrepentant Nazis in West Germany. To go after them now makes little sense.
In 1945 and 1946, during the Nuremberg trials the issue of superior orders again arose. Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which explicitly stated that following an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.
The court here argued that a death camp is a war crime and the superior order defense is inapplicable.
I don't necessarily agree with this. It really has to do with where you are in the hierarchy in the scope of your duties. Generals might be in a position to dispute unlawful orders, but it's highly unlikely that someone assigned to a concentration camp as a guard could simply refuse to perform those duties without consequence.
I don't think anyone was convicted for merely following orders, let alone not staging an uprising. Hell, some allegedly bad actors got off because they argued that they were just following orders.
I also think that no one here should be falling for the fable that any country in the modern West is a 'democracy'.
Which Nuremberg cases are you talking about?
I'm arguing that this is inconsistent with the Nuremberg framework. I am not aware of such a case from that time. (I'm also not sure if the article was a correct representation.)
It's certainly strange. Adenauer reintegrated a lot of unrepentant Nazis in West Germany. To go after them now makes little sense.
Quick Wikipedia reference:
The court here argued that a death camp is a war crime and the superior order defense is inapplicable.
I don't necessarily agree with this. It really has to do with where you are in the hierarchy in the scope of your duties. Generals might be in a position to dispute unlawful orders, but it's highly unlikely that someone assigned to a concentration camp as a guard could simply refuse to perform those duties without consequence.
"guard them or join them"