Did the Nazis break the law? Did the Nazis follow illegal orders?

I had an answer to my questions, and a position on this debate, before I wrote the prompt. In my own mind, it is entirely consistent for the actions of Nazis to have been perfectly legal at the time they were committed, and then declared illegal ex post facto. I see no reason to conclude that the rule of law has been contradicted by these circumstances.

Your argument regarding customary international law makes sense to me, and I am familiar with it, I just disagree based on the strong weight I give to state sovereignty and power.

~Max

Then the rule of law does not matter to you, only the whims of the state. That’s… chilling.

At your pleasure, I invite you to explain how I might also arrive at that conclusion. I claim,

  • the law was not broken at the time; and
  • that orders given were legal at the time; and
  • that the government retroactively clarified both of these points by statute; and
  • that the international community retroactively declared all three of the former points to be unlawful; and
  • that the former two retroactive statements were equally lawful; and
  • that the rule of law matters

Have I contradicted myself?

~Max

madsircool pointed out some Soviet atrocities. But other than Stalin (which we all know about anyway) generally no, nothing like what the Nazis were doing. And even so, Germany basically started it all anyway.

Yeah, I think you have. If you take the view that the rule of law matters, then you need to follow through and recognise that, from the time of the Enabling Act and the adoption of the Fuhrerprinzip, Nazi Germany was a state without the rule of law. It follows from this that point 2, “the orders given were legal at the time” cannot be true - there was no law in Germany at the time, only the assertion of power - and point 3, that the government retroactively clarified this by statute, is meaningless. Point 4, that the international community “retroactively declared” the previous points to be unlawful is perhaps misleadingly expressed. The declaration didn’t make the previous points unlawful with retroactive effect; it just recognised that they had, all along, been unlawful.

I cannot help but feel that any “justification” condemns the speaker.

How about the Night and fog degree? Later, Keitel said it was the worst illegal order he’d carried out.

I disagree that the rule of law is necessary to determine legality. Were it not so, we would be admitting that law did not exist until what, the eighteenth century?

I will admit, however, that my entire argument relies on the assumption that the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act were themselves legal. If these two authorities were legal, it does not follow that any action stemming from them is illegal. Therefore, it does not follow that there was no law in Germany, and it does not follow that I have contradicted myself on these grounds.

~Max

So, Max, just what are you trying to conclude from this question, anyway?

Because, even if you got everybody to say that the Nazis were following Nazi law while they murdered their neighbors, it seems to me that only two conclusions could properly be drawn from that:

  1. Sometimes it is right and proper to break the law.

  2. If you don’t want to be in the position of having to act on 1), then be damn careful what laws your country passes.

I further note that 2) doesn’t always work.

These are both valid conclusions, although to be honest I did not have any greater motive in mind when starting this topic. It was a simple case of, that’s interesting, why don’t I make a post about it?

~Max

I may be mistaken, but I believe Night and Fog involved prisoners of war and therefore contradicted treaties such as the Hague or Geneva conventions. So both the issuance and execution of that order count as war crimes.

~Max

The Nazis could at times be weirdly meticulous about following the forms of law; the Reichstag Fire Decree carefully cited the relevant article of the Weimar Constitution which permitted emergency decrees suspending civil liberties; after the Night of Long Knives Hitler promulgated the aforementioned (and ex post facto) “law” which nearly literally said “All those things we did yesterday were legal”. Any attempt to hold the surviving Nazi leadership criminally liable for, say, the viciously antisemitic Nuremberg Laws (which deprived German Jews of their citizenship and civil rights) would arguably have been ex post facto, an infringement on German sovereignty, and a blatantly hypocritical thing for the United States to have (hypothetically) done or participated in, given the contemporaneous existence of Jim Crow in much of the U.S.A.

But it’s worth pointing out that there was never any kind of formal law legalizing the mass murders of the Holocaust (the Shoah, and the Porajmos or the Romani people). I am not saying that Hitler didn’t give the orders–I’m quite certain that he did–but if surviving Nazis were prosecuted for mass murder for things they did at Auschwitz and Treblinka, there was no Law of 20 January 1942 or Führer Decree of 12 December 1941 they could point to, whereby being a Jew was made a capital crime. They were “just following orders”–what orders? Again, the point is not to let Hitler himself off the hook, but rather to point out that Hitler fundamentally acted like a “gangster” (as Churchill liked to point out). He got his caporegimes together and, however euphemistic or however blunt he may have been in private, he made no public decrees and left no written records concerning his orders to commit genocide.

Then, there is the fact that the worst of Nazi crimes took place on the soil of other countries–especially Poland–and against citizens of many other states which Nazi Germany had invaded. Germany was a signatory of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and I am not aware of Germany taking any steps (before the Nazis came to power or afterwards) to formally renounce or withdraw from that treaty. By the terms of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, Germany had agreed to give up “recourse to war” as “an instrument of national policy” in its foreign relations, and to seek only peaceful solutions for all international disputes. (Although the Pact was not as clear as Article 51 of the subsequent United Nations Charter in allowing for defensive war, the language in the Kellogg-Briand Pact’s preface did state that “any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty”.)

So, under the rule of Hitler and the Nazis, Germany–illegally and in violation of its treaty obligations–waged offensive and imperialistic warfare, conquering numerous other countries. Having illegally invaded, occupied, and in parts annexed various other sovereign states, Nazi Germany then carried out a policy of deliberate–but formally completely unacknowledged–mass murder. The Nazis clearly understood that what they were doing would be seen as criminal by the world–they consistently sought to conceal the mass murders (there were certainly no triumphant headlines in the Völkischer Beobachter, “Führer Decrees Law Making It Capital Crime to Be a Jew!”); the Jews were supposedly simply being “evacuated to the East”, or (allegedly humanely) housed in a “model concentration camp”. When the Nazis began losing the war they had started, and enemy armies began overrunning the territories where their mass murders were mainly being committed–again, territories the conquest of which was illegal by the terms of Germany’s solemn treaty obligations–the Nazis began a deliberate program of destroying the evidence of their murders.

What the Nazis did were absolutely crimes, and the Nazis clearly knew it themselves.

I don’t see anything to disagree with in that post.

~Max

One problem with your argument is that the Allies specifically targeted civilians with their bombing campaigns. They designed bomb combinations to maximize civilian deaths. Is it legal to target civilians or not?

How is this a problem with thorny_locust’s argument? ETA: Did you mean to respond to GreenWyvern again?

~Max

She is claiming that …

Because either murdering civilians is wrong or it is not.

But you are looking at bombing of cities there, IIRC the Nuremberg trials concentrated with the crimes against humanity. Herman Goering was not much condemned by the bombing of London, it was for creating the Gestapo and concentration camps. Hence the valid point about not being a good thing to murder their neighbors, not just in other countries, but in Germany too.

So are you claiming that it was right for the Nazis to murder civilians because the Allies fire bombed Dresden?

Because if not, I don’t see how that’s got a thing to do with my argument.

– and while I agree that deliberately targeting civilians in air raids in the middle of a war is wrong, I don’t think it’s the same thing as locking up civilians and murdering them in captivity. The bombing of Dresden is better comparable to the bombing of London than it is to the Holocaust.

I don’t see where thorny_locust claimed that murdering civilians was right or wrong. She had something to say about the conclusions which could follow if murdering civilians was legal.

~Max

Well, I did say that if it were legal then people needed to break the law. I think one can reasonably deduce from that that I think that it’s wrong.