what a masterpiece. even the title is wrong.
How's that for a start?PFoster 11:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)
- Good, but I just noticed Eichmann defense. One should be merged into the other (don't know which is more popular). ThunderkatzHo! 11:50, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I think "Nuremberg" is probably the best-known name - why not merge the stuff from eichmann here? PFoster 11:51, 1 February 2008 (EST)
A soldier is responsible for just conduct in war, and policy-makers are responsible for the just cause for war. -- I think this sums up why the whole idea of a Nuremburg loophole (as section IV is called) is unadulterated crap. How the hell can you have just conduct if you directly engaged in actions to support an unjust cause? It's okay to directly participate in a conflict that leaves tens of thousands of people without food and water (with a lot of them certainly dying) as long as you don't kick any puppies and kiss a few orphans? The soldiers who killed a bunch of prisoners of war acted unjustedly, but the quartermaster who knew of their future mission but nonetheless outfitted the soldiers with guns and ammo gets a free pass? The hell? 2:21, 14 November 2010 (EST) — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs 08:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Befehl ist Befehl
Fact or fiction?
It would be interesting to clarify this, but although this may be a popular legend, I am not sure that many of the defendants at Nuremberg did argue that they were only following orders. However the charter which set up the trial did say that this would not be a valid defence. Many of them were sufficiently senior figures that they could hardly argue this. Although, this defence was used, unsuccessfully I think, by British defence lawyers at the trial of a number of guards at Belsen concentration camp. PatGallacher (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)