Nazi death camp murders
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12321549

A German court has found John Demjanjuk guilty of helping to murder more than 28,000 Jews at a Nazi death camp in World War II.......

I understand that the Nazi death camps were a terrible thing. I don't get it. Wasn't John following orders from his commanders?

http://imageshack.us/m/59/3391/auchdees.jpg



http://imageshack.us/m/198/4946/radardees.jpg

FEMA CAMP NIGHTMARE 4 AMERICAN TAXPAYEr

Its a difficult issue. On one hand, he was following orders. On the other hand, he was complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent people. I believe that for the most part, the people who were following orders shouldn't be punished. Instead, the people who made the decisions should. Its not fair to punish people for following orders when disobeying them could have resulted in his imprisonment or death. I feel differently about this case, however. Despite substantial evidence against him, Demjanjuk never admited guilt or showed remorse for his actions. In the case of an unrepentant death camp guard, it is perfectly appropriate for the courts to step in.

I've had times where I was ordered to do things I couldn't accept from a moral stand point, and ultimately was exonerated, and the person in charge was removed while I was promoted. I could have followed orders, people would be dead, it would've been a lot less stressful, and nobody would have been the wiser. Here's the problem with the rational of "just following orders":

I, and most others, feel that each one of us has a moral responsibility to do what is right. That responsibility is to others, to our own conscience, or perhaps even a religious authority if you believe in such. And involves what is considered "decent" and respectable human treatment towards our fellow man when they are directly affected by our own actions.

There are laws and articles in place in support of such, and when we go against those laws (at the guidance of our leader or not) we are guilty of breaking those laws. Ultimately, the man in charge will not, and cannot, stand accused for your part in the crime. Only his own. No one person can typically accept blame for the wrongdoing of another, from a legal perspective, unless they exerted complete and clear control and force over that persons free will (which is what he might have tried using for a defense).

Understanding that life is not fair, and there is injustice, we still should all strive to do our part to take responsibility for our own actions. To take a stand on behalf of others who are in need, or who cannot defend themselves (to the extent that we are rationally able to).

I realize the above points are not perfect or flawless, there are exceptions to the above. But the heart of the points is what stands. In most cases, choosing to kill others rather than stand up and perhaps be killed for doing what is both legally and morally right is still considered a responsible choice on your part.

You make good points, and obviously acting under orders doesn't absolve him of all responsibility. It is however, a mitigating factor. His choice to participate in the Holocaust was made under duress. He was forced to commit horrible acts in the interest of self preservation, and can't be held completely culpable for his actions. The perfect, moral man would choose to disobey orders and face the consequences, but I don't think we should fault Demjanjuk for having human flaws.

I can't argue with that. It definitely is a mitigating factor :)