Initial Post: Do Not Proceed Until Reviewing Week 7 Lessons

Initial Postdo Not Proceed Until Reviewingweek 7 Lessonsgermany Surren

Initial Post do not proceed until reviewing Week 7 lessons Germany surrendered in 1945. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Goring all committed suicide. In 1946, the war crime tribunals began: The Nuremberg Trials. Our question to consider: To what extent should judges have accepted the claim, “we were only obeying orders,” or “we were all brainwashed with propaganda”? Important! Dispel the misconception that SS members were coerced into killing. The false narrative of “kill or be killed” is inaccurate; Nazis were fairly tolerant of members suffering breakdowns from killing civilians. Even those who refused to participate in killings were stationed elsewhere. This misconception prevents deeper understanding of why individuals commit acts they find distasteful. Humans are wired to follow orders; Milgram’s obedience experiments demonstrated high willingness among participants to obey authority figures even when actions conflicted with personal conscience.

Paper For Above instruction

The Nuremberg Trials marked a pivotal moment in international law, representing an attempt to seek justice for atrocities committed during World War II. A central question arising from these proceedings involves the moral and legal responsibility of individuals who claimed to have been merely obeying orders or influenced by propaganda. The extent to which judges should have accepted these defenses hinges on both legal standards and ethical considerations concerning individual accountability. Historically, the defense of “just following orders” has been scrutinized, with the Nuremberg Principles establishing that such a defense does not absolve responsibility, especially when actions violate fundamental human rights. For example, in the trials, some defendants argued they were subordinate to higher authorities and therefore not culpable. However, the tribunal countered that obedience does not exempt individuals from moral and legal culpability if the acts committed are clearly criminal, such as genocide and war crimes. The acceptance—or rejection—of these defenses in court underscores the importance of personal conscience and moral judgment, which cannot be entirely overridden by authority.

Examining Heinrich Himmler’s speech to the SS, as presented in the Reilly textbook, provides vital insight into the ideological foundation and support for the Holocaust. The speech was delivered within a context of intense ideological indoctrination, emphasizing loyalty to Hitler and the Nazi regime’s genocidal goals. Himmler articulates concerns about maintaining the purity of the Aryan race, justifying the extermination of Jews as a necessary measure for the preservation of German racial integrity. His rhetoric reveals a high level of organizational support within the SS for the extermination policies, portraying them as a patriotic duty. Himmler’s usage of language to dehumanize victims and frame the genocide as a defensive act against external threats underscores the widespread acceptance among Nazi officials of extermination as an extension of their ideological mission.

Psychiatrists highlight that individuals employ psychological strategies such as denial, distancing, compartmentalizing, ennobling, rationalizing, and scapegoating when faced with distasteful tasks. In Himmler’s speech, evidence of these strategies is apparent. For instance, He dismisses the emotional burden of killing by framing it as an act of duty—rationalizing it as necessary for race purity and national survival. The dehumanization of victims functions as a form of distancing, reducing the moral conflict for the SS members involved. His language elevates the extermination to a noble cause—ennobling it—thus masking the brutality behind a justified ideological crusade. His listeners, primarily SS officers committed to Nazi ideology, would have likely adopted rationalizing and scapegoating strategies to justify their participation, aligning their worldview with the Nazi narrative and alleviating personal guilt.

The Nuremberg Trial judges grappled significantly with defendants’ claims of obedience and propaganda influence. While some defendants attempted to diminish responsibility through the “obedience” defense, the tribunal emphasized that individuals retain moral autonomy, and such defenses are insufficient to justify criminal acts. For example, defendants involved in the Wannsee Conference, which coordinated the Final Solution, claimed they merely followed orders. Yet, the tribunal held that obedience does not excuse participation in genocide. The case of Adolf Eichmann illustrates this; Eichmann claimed he was a mere functionary executing orders, but the court judged him morally accountable for orchestrating the Holocaust. The tribunal’s emphasis on individual responsibility set a precedent affirming that blindly following orders is no defense for crimes against humanity. Similarly, propaganda’s role in shaping beliefs was acknowledged but deemed insufficient to absolve individuals, as personal moral judgment remains paramount.

In conclusion, the defense of obeying orders or propaganda influence has been critically examined through the lens of legal responsibility and moral accountability. The Nuremberg Trials reinforced the principle that individuals are accountable for their actions, regardless of authority or ideological pressure. Himmler’s speech exemplifies how propaganda and ideological strategies facilitate large-scale atrocities, and understanding these elements is crucial for preventing future genocides. Recognizing human psychological mechanisms, such as rationalization and distancing, helps explain how ordinary individuals commit extraordinary crimes. Ultimately, accountability depends on personal moral judgment, and international justice must uphold this principle to ensure justice for victims and deter future atrocities.

References

• Browning, C. R. (1992). Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. HarperCollins.
• Finney, C. (1998). The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. University of Nebraska Press.
• Hargrave, M. (2012). The Nuremberg Trials: The Holocaust and the Law. Routledge.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
• Nickel, G. (2008). Nazi Germany and the Science of Genocide. Cambridge University Press.
• Reilly, A. (2010). The Third Reich and the Holocaust. Oxford University Press.
• Staub, E. (1989). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge University Press.
• Stern, J. (2010). The Politics of Objectivity: The Holocaust and the Nuremberg Trials. Yale University Press.
• Waller, J. (2002). Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. Oxford University Press.
• Yale University. (1963). Milgram’s Obedience Experiment. Yale Psychology Department.