64 years since Hiroshima...

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
And to put it in more simple terms;

While i'm not saying that all allied were secretly masturbating on dead nazi babies, i'm also saying that not all nazis were masturbating on little dead winstons while gassing jews with the right hand.

the line is not that clear. It's war.
 

00dave

Artist formerly known as Ignus
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
1,549
It goes on even today; soldiers follow orders, that's the job. If you don't, well, you know what happens these days,

No Toht what does happen these days? Go on guess that's what you seem to do with everything else then pass it on as fact. You have a bash at it then I'll tell you how wrong you are.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
No Toht what does happen these days? Go on guess that's what you seem to do with everything else then pass it on as fact. You have a bash at it then I'll tell you how wrong you are.

I'm not bashing it.

I'm assuming that soldiers these days get some form of disciplinary action if they don't follow orders, you can correct me as i'm not an expert on modern warfare or the chain of command.
 

00dave

Artist formerly known as Ignus
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
1,549
I'm not bashing it.

I'm assuming that soldiers these days get some form of disciplinary action if they don't follow orders, you can correct me as i'm not an expert on modern warfare or the chain of command.

Think you misunderstood what I was saying there, but my fault for using an old British phrase.

Soldiers have the right to refuse an order if it is considered an illegal order, basically if it contravenes existing law, for example mistreating prisoners is classed as illegal, so saying you were ordered to do so is no defence.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Think you misunderstood what I was saying there, but my fault for using an old British phrase.

Soldiers have the right to refuse an order if it is considered an illegal order, basically if it contravenes existing law, for example mistreating prisoners is classed as illegal, so saying you were ordered to do so is no defence.

What about war situations? If say some soldier declined to fire a tank cannon at a school because he thinks there's kids inside, yet the commander doesn't agree?

In any case, the point was more to say that these days you get punished for going against orders(within reason), and that reason has grown since WW2.

So while now you won't get shot for not firing a tank cannon into a school, those days it would've been a completely different situation.
 

00dave

Artist formerly known as Ignus
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
1,549
What about war situations? If say some soldier declined to fire a tank cannon at a school because he thinks there's kids inside, yet the commander doesn't agree?

In any case, the point was more to say that these days you get punished for going against orders(within reason), and that reason has grown since WW2.

So while now you won't get shot for not firing a tank cannon into a school, those days it would've been a completely different situation.

That has actually happened before. But i think soldiers have been bound by existing law ever since the geneva convention was thought up, a sort of a "we'll play by the rules if you do" situation which is why what the japs did to POWs is inexcusable.
Also imagine the dog eat dog situation of WW2, officers were as likely to get shot for issuing the order in the first place. Spike Milligan in his book talks about how the men rebelled against an officer who wanted his men on parade after the war had been declared won.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
I'm sure it has happened, but where does the line go?

Soldiers suspicion?

These days i think the line is clearer then back then atleast.

Good point on the rebelling soldiers, it did go both ways, but still i think, note think, most soldiers in the field simply don't have time to think every order.

Heck, i think if they did, things would get messy.

But i think we can agree that the common soldier, on either side, was rather equal in how evil they were? I would rather blame the commanding officers, then the ones carrying out orders.

Especially when thinking that if you grew up in nazi germany, one would most likely agree on the was effort simply due to propaganda and peer pressure. Afterall, Hitler could have sold a fridge to an Eskimo.

Filled with marmite.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom