1st Reaction Blog Post - Obedience to Power

Patrick Dancoes

Prof. Shirk

POL-357B

1^st Reaction Blog Post

2/25/18

Obedience to Power

Why Following Orders Isn't an Excuse

During the Second World War, the globe witnessed a radical, militarist, and an expansionist regime that terrorized Europe with acts of mass atrocities and genocide; all under the direction and imposed authority of Adolf Hitler. However, the success of the Nazi occupation was only made possible by the men who carried out those orders and executed that which came down their chain-of-command. From a social phycology standpoint, the observed obedience of the Nazi soldiers suggests that these men were either conforming to the pressures of social influence, meaning they supported the norms and actions of the people around them; or they instead were just obeying their orders, because of the bondage to hierarchical authority. The second case referred to as ‘blind obedience’ was the primary defense for the accused during the Nuremberg Trials, where their lawyers argued that this lessened the degree of their culpability in their actions. Being so, this blog prompt will focus on a few of those who obeyed and willingly performed heinous Nazi orders, and shortly interpret how important social phycology and blind obedience is as an excuse to their participation.

In the historically accurate book Ordinary Men written by Christopher Browning, the story followed Major Wilhelm Trapp and his reserve police battalion. The relevance of Trapp’s battalion lies within the series of orders they received. The first order was as follows, “round up the Jews. The male Jews of working age [are] to be separated and taken to a work camp. The remaining Jews – the women, children, and elderly – [are] to be shot on the spot by the battalion.” This order is one of many that Trapp’s unit received that called for the immediate killing of Jewish non-combatants. As a result, his unit gained the undignified titled of one of Nazi Germany’s most efficient extermination detachment’s. However, before any executions were fulfilled Trapp established notable social conditions within his unit by giving the men a choice to partake. In short, Trapp told his men they could either carry out their orders and kill Jewish women and children; or instead, they could “step out” if they “did not feel up for the task.” Astonishingly, out of the 500 men in the unit, only a dozen or so choose to opt-out. The behavior of these few men is noteworthy. This is because the actions of the dozen or so of them who decided to seize Trapp’s opportunity and excused themselves are the men who displayed the most opposition to being complicit. Thus, their actions carry much more defensive weight in a courtroom compared to a soldier claiming he only participated because of hierarchical influences and sightless obedience. Unfortunately, the remainder of Trapp’s battalion did not display the same resistance of those dozen men, and thus their obedience to authority led to the killing of more than 1,500 women, children, and elderly individuals.

So what made these men obey and how responsible for their actions are they? Most would agree that any Nazi soldier, especially those who were willing participants in the mass-execution of women and children should be fully responsible for their actions. Most would also concede that with these conditions the motivating causes behind their obedience should not lessen the degree of their responsibility. Yet, ending the discussion in a two-sentence fashion fails to understand what reality was like for these men, and it also disregards the very real mechanisms Nazis used to cope with their actions. This is not to lighten the proceedings of the holocaust, but instead to better understand how a man in Trapp’s unit might think while he carried out his orders. Like most people would, the men participating in Trapp’s unit had some real internal struggles with their involvement in the Nazi’s extermination plans. The men who participated in the numerous slaughters developed individual ways to navigate, and mentally survive their series of ordered executions. The most common tactics used by soldiers were simple routine distractions like cigarettes breaks and organized drinking periods. Other methods involved the soldier “slipping away” from their assignments periodically, some even protected their mental health by outright “refraining from shooting infants and small children.” To any extent, all the men wanted was a break away from the continuous killing. Any relief from the horrors that followed the execution process seemed to be sought after for Trapp's men. After many orders and their ensuing executions, anguish and bitterness were the shared emotions of virtually all the men in Trapp’s battalion. The demoralization observed in Trapp’s men shows that they did not support the orders they received and were hard-pressed about facilitating future orders that involved murder. However, this is not to provide any excuses for the actions of the men in Trapp’s unit. For, in fact, those men killed families, friends, loved ones and terrorized anyone who had been witness to it.

In conclusion, when examining the rationale behind an individual who has legitimized their participation in action, particularly when the results of the action are tantamount to terrorism; any excuse that is based on the social phenomena of human obedience is not a real explanation to why they are not responsible. Blind obedience or even reluctant obedience does not justify someone getting off-the-hook for their behavior if the result has anything to do with the murdering of people. So how important are social phycology and blind obedience in excusing the culpability of the men in Trapp’s battalion? Well, not very. Social phycology explains some important things like how and why blind obedience happens, but being blindly obedient in this case does not decrease the guilt or blame that is deserved. The real knowledge that can be taken away from the social conditions of the men in Trapp’s battalion lies within their behavior to willingly follow orders. This insight gives us the ability to explain how average Germans men became highly efficient mass-murderers and suggests that if these men could be turned into effective killers - any group of men could be turned into effective killers. 

Sources

Browning, Christopher R. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland. HarperCollins Publisher. Chapters 1, 7, 8 (Pgs. 1-2; 55-77)