BF2S Forums "I was only following orders"

I think whomever steps into this role should have capital punishment leveled upon them. It dosent really matter if it was him or someone else, you cant convict that someone else just because there may have been. The fact remains he did this and should be punished for it.

I dont know if it sound right because I have drank a couple... but if someone is a serial killer inside but never kills anyone, you cant give them capital punisment just because they would commint those acts... but if someone is a serial killer inside and does kill people you  can... even drunk that does sound right to me actually...

Althought .... after reading more into the milgram experiments, which i had heard of, but never looked into before, there may still be some legitamacy to the claim,"I was just following orders." but the fact does still remain that he did. True... maybe 60% of people would, but he was still the one who did, and you cant really say I'm just a monkey when millions are dead....

Last edited by Nicholas Langdon (2008-08-12 02:06:38)

Those Israelis Mossads, they think they can do everything.

Wheey i made a srs thread

If he had morals he could have done a shittier job at it. If Shindler didn't manufacture German weapons in his factory most likely he'd end up dead. However he told his workers to purposely create faults in the machinery.

If the guy made errors and did a poor job of the creating of concentration camps then he's got a leg to stand on in this trial.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its not so simple to disobey orders in the third reich - most probably he would have been shot.

But where do you draw the line?
IG Farben made the gas, the driver of the truck who delivered the cylinders?

Another good point, IG Farben (who manufactured Zyklone B for the Wehrmacht) received little punishment (from the west at least), and even ended up assisting the US in the development of chemical warfare agents.

FEOS wrote:

There's a reason that (at least in the US) military members are taught the difference between a legal and a non-legal order. Eichmann's orders were clearly illegal and the burden was on him not to follow them. As soon as he made the decision to follow an illegal order, his guilt was manifest.

I think the crux of this is even if he had refused, it would have been done anyway.

Poseidon wrote:

What's that test they used in which people were told to shock/electrocute other people?

This one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Poseidon wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

What's that test they used in which people were told to shock/electrocute other people?

This one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

That'd be it.

This one is also interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

FEOS wrote:

There's a reason that (at least in the US) military members are taught the difference between a legal and a non-legal order. Eichmann's orders were clearly illegal and the burden was on him not to follow them. As soon as he made the decision to follow an illegal order, his guilt was manifest.

Actually I'm sure the orders were legal at the time in Nazi Germany/German occupied countries

Still isn't an excuse, if he really really didn't want to do it, he would have just not done it. It's as simple as that. The fact that he did it, and did it quite well shows that there was a part of him that either wanted to do it, or just didn't really care what he was doing.

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-12 09:13:44)

FatherTed wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

...that there was a part of him that either wanted to do it, or just didn't really care what he was doing.

I've read the transcripts of his interrogation following arrest, and he seemed quite emotional about it,

Those guys were super manipulative..I highly doubt his emotions were genuine.

FEOS wrote:

There's a reason that (at least in the US) military members are taught the difference between a legal and a non-legal order. Eichmann's orders were clearly illegal and the burden was on him not to follow them. As soon as he made the decision to follow an illegal order, his guilt was manifest.

Under which law were his orders illegal?

Vilham wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

After a war as horrid as WW2, I'd say executing Eichmann was a great way to make an example out of him.  Victors make the rules, and part of that involves eliminating the top tiers of your fallen enemy.

Eichmann's execution (among many others) was needed to avenge the horrors of the Holocaust.

The one person in the thread who seems to know something.

And seriously enough with the "evil" bullshit already people. There is no such thing as good or evil.

Yes, there is good and evil. Not on a global level but on a personal one. I bet that you classify things as good and bad as well. You just don't think that your view is shared by all.

Chrisimo wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

After a war as horrid as WW2, I'd say executing Eichmann was a great way to make an example out of him.  Victors make the rules, and part of that involves eliminating the top tiers of your fallen enemy.

Eichmann's execution (among many others) was needed to avenge the horrors of the Holocaust.

The one person in the thread who seems to know something.

And seriously enough with the "evil" bullshit already people. There is no such thing as good or evil.

Yes, there is good and evil. Not on a global level but on a personal one. I bet that you classify things as good and bad as well. You just don't think that your view is shared by all.

Sorry but if you think the world is that black and white, you have a lot to still realise or you live an incredibly carefree existence in which nothing ever is in that massive grey region that is called life.

Last edited by Vilham (2008-08-13 02:27:20)