Was the luftwaffe really apolitical or not? Does a "clean luftwaffe" thing exist?

[Shortround6]

The invasion of Iceland may well have been "illegal" however to turn that into a real war crime seems to hinge on:

Count 1 _ There was never any conspiracy by Britain to wage aggressive war against Denmark, or Icleand.

Many countries have "contingency plans" as in "what if country A invades country B and threatens our lines of support/supply? Do we put troops into country C (invade/occupy) in order to block further moves by country A or to deny them access to our lines of support/supply?

This is a thin line and grey area. as the "plan" calls for no aggressive action (an aggressive war) against country C IF Country A does nothing or doesn't invade country B.

Count 2 The peace for Denmark and Iceland had disappeared with the Nazi occupation of Jutland and Norway

Iceland was not invaded until about 1 month after the attacks on Denmark and Norway started. As the Germans exercised control over more of the Norwegian coast Iceland became more important as a base/blocking position to keep german forces out of the Atlantic.

Seizing Iceland gained Britain a strategic advantage but it gained Britain little, if anything, in resources/raw materials, manufacturing facilities or any other gain of wealth/loot. The British did not use the Icelanders for forced labor.

The difference seems to be that Britain did not take over Iceland in a war of aggression or to "profit" from the invasion, as in appropriate goods/materials/labor form Iceland for the benefit of the British Public nor did Britain invade Iceland in the furtherance of a goal of wiping out certain ethnic people.


Technically if I walk through your backyard I am trespassing. What I do in your backyard can escalate that crime to whole new levels. Did I just walk through and perhaps trample some grass or a shrub/flower? did I rip and destroy a flower bed? Did I take some of your possessions with me when I left? Did I harm any of your family members or pets while I was there?
Did I destroy (burn) any out buildings?

These are all separate crimes in civil law. And obviously some are much more serious than others. On a nation to nation basis what ones did England commit during it's invasion/occupation of Iceland?

yes England "broke the law" but it's crime was pretty low down on the scale of things and nobody yet has any proof that there was a "plan" that existed prewar to take over Iceland and loot it under the pretext of saving it from Germany. Without evidence of such a plan the British invasion/occupation falls a bit short of a "war crime" of the level prosecuted at Nuremberg

 

[parsifal]

Occupation by military means is not aggressive? There was no war because Iceland had no capacity for war.

Did Iceland want to be invaded? Nope.

When did morality and legality depend on the willingness of the subject to be passive? You are actually justifying the invasion of a neutral country!

Occupation does not necessarily mean aggressive war. You need to read the Nuremberg principals to better understand that. If you want to pass moral judgements on the British feel free to do so, but stomping your feet and claiming it is "the vibe", or "mabo" or the "constitution" doesn't prove anything.

Its the vibe, its mabo, its the contitution - Bing video

Did Iceland want to be occupied. No, just the same as Iraq did not want to be occupied. That is one of the criteria for aggressive war, but all of the criteria that make up the definition need to be met in order for the definition to be applied.

Nuremberg established some good principals about what was needed in order to consider a war a war of aggression

In the judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg ,, "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[ Article 39 of the UN Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

The attack on Iceland fall well short of these basic tests in my opinion

When did morality and legality depend on the willingness of the subject to be passive? You are actually justifying the invasion of a neutral country!

Im not condoning anything or passing any moral judgement either. But interpreting you rather erratic statements , it looks as if you are substituting the terms "morality" and "legality" with motivation and effect. What was the motivation of Germany when it invaded Norway and Denmark. Can be complex, but for simplicity I would say it was to exploit the countries. The second thing is to examine "effect" What was the effect of the Nazi occupation of Scandinavia. A lot of suffering. Now apply those same tests to the British oocupation of Iceland. The motivation was security and protection of vital intersts, as well as to protect the Icelanders from what had happened in Scandnavia. It just doesn't fit the mold of aggressive war as fashioned by the IMT in 1945. Im not justifying anything other than firstly to deal with whether the DKM was a politically motivated force, secondly whether its leadership was criminally bankrupt, and thirdly to examine whether the British invasion of Iceland could possibly meet the criteria of waging an aggressive war. On balance, it fails that test. .

 

[swampyankee]

The question about war crimes is distinct from the question about whether the Luftwaffe was political. Certainly, its leadership had a political agenda and used its personnel to forward that objective, which included objectives that included the mass murder of civilians on ethnic grounds. The Luftwaffe did not do that to the extent of German ground forces, but it was certainly indirectly supporting the ground forces and a major factor enabling the ground forces to succeed in constructing and operating the death and concentration camps.

 

[tyrodtom]

The Germans did a invasion study of Iceland, operation Ikarus.

Just think if they had got there first and established a squadron of Condors . Plus weather stations, and possible U-boat base.

They saw a invasion as easily possible, but continued support and supply of a base there as virtually impossible.

 

[The Basket]

Don't get me wrong. What the Germans did in ww2 was awful and beyond the concept of humanity.
And a trial was necessary to show the world Nazi crimes. I have no issue with that.
But in comparison is not a basis for law.

The Invasion of Iceland was nice. So that's ok. Apart from the invasion thing. Which isn't ok. But the Icelandic people seemed to like it which was ok. And they did what they were told. Which was also nice.

3 issues with Nuremberg is

1, they were operating under German law which was whatever Hitler said and since any order he said was legal then they didn't act illegally.

2. The laws were written after the fact and there was no legal framework to actually convict for the war crimes. The Indian judge in the Japanese war trials actually said this.

3. The USSR was a judge which committed pretty much the same crimes as the Nazis!
In fact they conspired with Germany to invade Poland. And invaded the Baltic States and Finland. And Katyn.

One must not accept facts blindly or without thought.

 

[swampyankee]

The Nuremberg trials were also about crimes committed outside Germany, in occupied countries, obviously including their industrial mass murder and killing everyone in a village after partisan activity and during the invasions, e.g., murdering soldiers from France's African colonies who surrendered.

 

[parsifal]

Regarding your 3 issues with Nuremberg, its impressive to see you have the confidence to think you can outperform the best legal minds of the time. I am not nearly so confident.

Under your point 1, not even hitler could have been indicted for any crimes. No German who committed crimes against humanity, waged an aggressive war, committed war crimes, or crimes against peace was guilty of nothing provided they abided by German law.
The extermination of Jews and Gypsies and Slavics was not a crime against humanity because these ethnicities were not considered human

The Germans at least were signatories of the 1929 Geneva convention and the 1907 Hague convention on the rules of warfare at sea. Under your suggestion, acts carried out in contravention of these conventions were okay. The shooting of commandoes, for example was perfectly okay because hitler had ordered it.. all I can say in response is....ARE YOU SERIOUS????????

With regard to your second point, you are partly right, but mostly wrong. The laws regarding war crimes were developed over the preceding 50 years. What was missing were the instruments to deal with the concentration camps mostly. No-one had ever envisioned such acts of mass murder were possible. Perhaps greater attention to the Armenian genocide should have been paid, but no legal framework actually existed to cover the events adequately. the existing body of international law concerning war crimes (oh, I forgot you reject the application of war crimes, but I will continue) focussed on the actions and treatments of the military, but inadequately focussed on the activities of the political arm of the nation.

The Nuremberg trials, the formulation of the rules to be applied were the product of the UN, a collective approach to a global catastrophe. Applying German law to an international problem would have ensured complete immunity to prosecution and served no justice to the millions who had suffered because of the failure of the german system and german infrastructure. Rewarding that failure with a supreme position in the quest for international justice would have been an utter betrayal and was never going to happen. the USSR for all its failings was a member of the UN and had earned its place in blood to sit at that table. Nuremberg certainly wasn't their first choice. I am a great admirer of the US prosecutor Jackson. I think it to his credit that he doggedly insisted that all the defendants despite their obvious repugnance to the world, because of what they had done, were afforded the nearest thing to a fair trial as was possible. Like all human constructs, it was a compromise between the various players, and particualry vulnerable, but proof that it atleast paid lip service to true justice is the fact that at least some of the defendants were acquitted or escaped the hangmans noose

Your last statement I agree with, but unless you believe all Germans, including Hitler were worthy of acquittal it is obvious that the model you are advocating has not been subjected to the process you advocate in your final sentence.

 

[The Basket]

These are points brought up by Telford Taylor and not I.

I forgot the name of his book.

The Commando order was a direct order from Hitler which meant in German law it was legal. So any German who carried it out was following German law and wouldn't be prosecuted by German courts. Any German who didn't carry it out could find themselves under fire. Whether it was morally wrong, that is the way it was.

Occupied territories would have come under German law not the law of the occupied nation to my knowledge.

 

[parsifal]

I haven't read all of Telford Taylors books, , but those that I have show strong support for Nuremberg. Thats not to say he didn't have criticisms of it, he did, but overall he was a strong believer in the process that I can tell. I note that he wrote quite a few books and I haven't read all of them, so if he did come out with what you are claiming, it would be inconsistent with his other writings.

Wiki says that he was generally happy with the Nuremberg processes and supported it as an institution. This is understandable, and logical, considering that after the departure of his boss chief prosecutor Robert Jackson in 1945, Taylor was promoted to the role of chief prosecutor himself and presided over the additional 200 prosecution of the IMT that formed part of the Nuremberg process overall, and in which 163 resulted in successful prosecutions.

Whatever he is alleged to have written in his books, his actions appear to suggest he was a strong supporter of the process.i suspect a misrepresentation of him is afoot.

This was written of telford taylor on his death in 1998 , appearing in the New York Times:

"Telford Taylor, a principal prosecutor of high Nazi officials and leading German industrialists at the Nuremberg war crimes trials after World War II, died yesterday at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in Manhattan. He was 90.

His wife, Toby Golick, said the cause of death was a stroke. He lived for many years in Manhattan near Columbia University, where he taught law.

As a young Army colonel at Nuremberg in 1945, Mr. Taylor helped write the rules for prosecuting Hermann Goring, Rudolf Hess and other top Nazis. He went on to become the trials' chief prosecutor and an authority on the laws of war. (my underline)

In the decades after the trials, Mr. Taylor wrote and lectured extensively on the moral conduct of the United States and other nations and was an early opponent of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Among the concerns that beckoned him was what he saw as a continued reliance on war as an instrument of national policy and the commission of war crimes by the United States in Vietnam

He began at the Nuremberg trials as an assistant to the chief counsel, the former United States Attorney General, Robert H. Jackson. Mr. Jackson was the principal prosecutor leading Britain, France and the Soviet Union, as well as the United States, in the trials of Nazi leaders accused of crimes against humanity".

Hmmm, not consistent with your claim he thought German law should apply

In 1949, on completion of the IMT's work, he wrote:

9 May 1949. In a statement to the International News Service, U.S. Brig. Gen. Telford Taylor announced the official end of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals. Taylor declared: "I venture to predict that as time goes on we will hear more about Nuremberg rather than less, and that in a very real sense the conclusion of the trials marks the beginning, and not the end, of Nuremberg as a force in politics, law and morals. . . . It is a precedent which will be welcomed by all who believe that peace and human dignity will find their surest guarantee in the establishment of 'world order under the rule of law.' "

So, are you sure you want to continue with this claim of yours about him? If so, you had better track the book and quote the passage you are referring to……I think he wrote about a dozen books including several about Nuremberg

The Columbia state university rare books site features him and his book "the telford papers"on their holocaust section wherein , it states:

"In conclusion, the Telford Taylor Papers represent an integral part of the Columbia University Libraries archival mission – to foster the global exchange of ideas, to promote world class scholarship, and to train highly skilled human rights advocates. On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, therefore, we as citizen advocates honor the victims of the Shoah by recommitting ourselves to the precedent of the Nuremberg Trials and guaranteeing the peace and human dignity of all persons through a world order established under the rule of law"".

Your claim is not looking too flash now......I strongly suspect you are misquoting and/or misrepresenting this man, or at best have named the wrong author..

 

[The Basket]

Rule of law?
Was Stalin tried for his crimes?
Katyn? Invasion of Finland?
Nope. So let's leave that out.

The issue is this.
The Commando Order was legal and lawful under German law and so no Nazi court was ever going to convict you.

The Allies say the Commando order is illegal and so convict officers such as Jodl for the drafting of such a law.

The paradox is that a perfectly legal action has been overturned by an outside force who now backdated the law so it is illegal. And you can now be tried for something which you legally did.

This is called Ex post facto law and differs from country to country. A good example of this is East German border guards who shot escaping civilians and then were convicted by the unified Germany.

This is the problem the Nuremberg trials had to deal with because you were going to convict people under laws which either didn't exist or would have been over ridden by a lawful order from the head of state.

That head of state is Hitler and his word was law.

 

[parsifal]

It was impossible to place Stalin on trial at a court set up to investigate and try German offenders. I would suggest your outburst in this regard fits well into the category of "cheap shot". It has about the logic to it aas saying in 1939 after hitler had invaded Poland "We need to put him on trial for that!" Maybe, but a war to make him surrender then place him custody and then put him on trial needed to be done first. there was zero chance of that happening to Stalin in 1945.

At Nuremberg, and the subsequent US IMT trials Twelve were sentenced to death, one in absentia, and the rest were given prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life behind bars. Ten of the condemned were executed by hanging on October 16, 1946. Hermann Göring (1893-1946), Hitler's designated successor and head of the "Luftwaffe" (German air force), committed suicide the night before his execution with a cyanide capsule he had hidden in a jar of skin medication. All o0f those placed on Trial were in positions of authority and able to make life or death decisions. They had a choice in carrying out the orders. the best exam0le of that is perhaps Speer. at the end of the war Hitler had issued orders that would have led to the mass starvation of Germans. he gave that order to Speer. Speer failed to carry out the order, though he was in a position to do so. Why? Because he would have been acting inhumanely to the survivors of Germany if he had. Why did he not display the same compassion to non Germans and members of the concentration camps placed under his protection? .

Following the Trial of Major War Criminals, there were 12 additional trials held at Nuremberg. These proceedings, lasting from December 1946 to April 1949, and are grouped together as the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings. They differed from the first trial in that they were conducted before U.S. military tribunals rather than the international tribunal that decided the fate of the major Nazi leaders. The reason for the change was that growing differences among the four Allied powers had made other joint trials impossible. The subsequent trials were held in the same location at the Palace of justice

The Nuremberg process initiated 3,887 cases of which 3400 were dropped. Less than 500 cases (489) went to trial that involved 1672 defendants. 1416 were found guilty, but less than 200 were executed. Another 279 defendants were sent to life in prison but by the 1950s almost all of them had been released.

A list of the defendants of Nuremberg can be found here:

List of Axis personnel indicted for war crimes - Wikipedia

It would be in your interest to study that list rather than rely on your feelings and "make it up" as it were. I would like you to point out to me which soldiers of private rank or non-commissioned rank were convicted and punished for obeying orders to execute the commandoes. As far as I can see there were none. I don't include the SS camp guards in that exception

It is clear from your reply that you really have little or no understanding of the Nuremberg process The Nuremberg principles are an essential component of the trials process, and are still used today. Ive already posted them, you need to look at them before making a further fool of yourself. They do cover what you are saying, and a soldier deemed incapable or not in a position to disobey was not ever placed on trial. A lot that went outside that "forced criminality" (my term) and voluntarily (and usually enthusiastically) also were never placed on trial. Like many Uboat skippers for example. The ones that were were those individuals that set policy'made it happen, displayed cruelty that transcended any bounds of human decency, developed or produced weaponary that was illegal even by prewar standard and international treaty and the other principals on which basic human rights were applicable. Basic human rights that had been accepted by Germany prewar, hence the illegality of the "commando order".

What happened to your piece on Telford Taylor?

 

[The Basket]

Yes or no.
Was the commando order legal under Nazi law?

 

[KiwiBiggles]

Yes or no.
Was the commando order legal under Nazi law?

Unless Germany had specifically abrogated the Geneva Convention, I would say that the order would have been illegal under German law.

 

[parsifal]

It was unlawful even in the context of wartime Nazi germany

Firstly the order

1. For a long time now our opponents have been employing in their conduct of the war, methods which contravene the International Convention of Geneva. The members of the so-called Commandos behave in a particularly brutal and underhand manner; and it has been established that those units recruit criminals not only from their own country but even former convicts set free in enemy territories. From captured orders it emerges that they are instructed not only to tie up prisoners, but also to kill out-of-hand unarmed captives who they think might prove an encumbrance to them, or hinder them in successfully carrying out their aims. Orders have indeed been found in which the killing of prisoners has positively been demanded of them.

2. In this connection it has already been notified in an Appendix to Army Orders of 7.10.1942. that in future, Germany will adopt the same methods against these Sabotage units of the British and their Allies; i.e. that, whenever they appear, they shall be ruthlessly destroyed by the German troops.

3. I order, therefore:-

From now on all men operating against German troops in so-called Commando raids in Europe or in Africa, are to be annihilated to the last man. This is to be carried out whether they be soldiers in uniform, or saboteurs, with or without arms; and whether fighting or seeking to escape; and it is equally immaterial whether they come into action from Ships and Aircraft, or whether they land by parachute. Even if these individuals on discovery make obvious their intention of giving themselves up as prisoners, no pardon is on any account to be given. On this matter a report is to be made on each case to Headquarters for the information of Higher Command.

4. Should individual members of these Commandos, such as agents, saboteurs etc., fall into the hands of the Armed Forces through any means - as, for example, through the Police in one of the Occupied Territories - they are to be instantly handed over to the S.D.

To hold them in military custody - for example in P.O.W. Camps, etc., - even if only as a temporary measure, is strictly forbidden.

5. This order does not apply to the treatment of those enemy soldiers who are taken prisoner or give themselves up in open battle, in the course of normal operations, large scale attacks; or in major assault landings or airborne operations. Neither does it apply to those who fall into our hands after a sea fight, nor to those enemy soldiers who, after air battle, seek to save their lives by parachute.

6. I will hold all Commanders and Officers responsible under Military Law for any omission to carry out this order, whether by failure in their duty to instruct their units accordingly, or if they themselves act contrary to it.

(Sgd) A Hitler

Was the order lawful

The laws of war, of which Germany was a signatory, as they stood in 1942 were unequivocal on this point: "it is especially forbidden ... to declare that no quarter will be given ". This was established under Article 23 (d) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land. The 1929 Geneva convention, which Germany had ratified, defined who should be considered a pow on capture — that included enemy soldiers in proper uniforms — and how they should be treated. While at the time under both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, it was legal to execute "spies and saboteurs" disguised in civilian clothes or uniforms of the enemy, insofar as the Commando Order applied to soldiers in proper uniforms, it was in direct and deliberate violation of both the customary laws of war and Germany's treaty obligations. Hitlers order was therefore unlawful, and the officers who saw the order knew it. At least the one brought before the IMT. The execution of Allied commandos without trial was also a violation of Article 30 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land, provided that: "A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial." This provision only includes soldiers caught behind enemy lines in disguises, and not those wearing proper uniforms. Soldiers in proper uniforms cannot be punished for being lawful combatants and must be treated as prisoners of war upon capture, except those disguised in civilian clothes or uniforms of the enemy for military operations behind enemy lines.

The fact that Hitler's staff took special measures to keep the Order secret, including the limitation of its printing to only twelve copies, strongly suggests that they knew it to be illegal. Several of them during their trials admitted that including (I think) none less than Goering himself. Hitler also knew the order would be unpopular with the professional military, in particular the part of the order that stated that the order would stand even if captured commandos were in proper uniforms (in contrast to the usual provision of international law that only commandos disguised in civilian clothes or uniforms of the enemy could be treated as insurgents or spies, as stated in the "Ex parte Quinn" is a case of the US supreme court during WWII that upheld the jurisdiction of a US military court over the trial of eight German sabateurs found in the US. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commissions across the world. There are similar precedent in German law, though I cant quote them. It was argued July 29 and July 30, 1942, and decided July 31, 1942, with an extended opinion filed October 29, 1942.

This decision states in part that:

... the law of war (established under the hague convention) draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerentss and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants that are captured must be incarcerated as prisoners by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

The commandos were not afforded this opportunity, which is manifestly clear in the order. It adds to the fact that the order was unlawful, including unlawful under german law.

That a refusal to obey this illegal order would not result in automatic execution is evidenced by the reaction of many officers of the heer. Some commanders like Rommel and Kesselring refused to relay this order to their troops, considering it to be contrary to honourable conduct and illegal. They were absolutely correct

 

[swampyankee]

During the nazi murder campaigns in the East, army personnel were, according to some books, not punished for refusing to, say rape, torture, or murder many of the peoples of occupied countries.

Even disregarding this, the mass murder of civilians and surrendering combatants was not permissible, and both were nazi policy.

 

[taly01]

Was the luftwaffe really apolitical or not? Does a "clean luftwaffe" thing exist?

I'm not sure when the less-nazi-than-you game started but I've read it was probably around the 1950's when the West Germans were rebuilding their armed forces, and they had to rehabilitate their militaries reputation. I find it rather philosophically silly, as all armies fight for their government.

Erich Hartmann "last interview" on Youtube is quite interesting, he says basically they were young guys brought up on war propaganda and got to fly 1000hp+ planes

 

[michaelmaltby]

The closest comparison in Modern History of the Nazi-Soviet war in the east is the American Civil War ... a war of manouver on a vast scale ... every bit as ideologically-fought .... with the targeting of civilian populations a matter of military strategy .... and the Nazis of this war were NOT the Confederate Forces (although there were many qualities that are also associated with the Nazis).
Union Generals Grant and Sherman were 2 of the greatest modern commanders, IMO, although Parifal will probably disagree, with that view.
Bismark and the German High Command paid very close attention to their play-book.
Grant and Sherman's doctrine was that the more violent and traumatic a military force can be, the shorter the war. Horrific as that may be. it is hard to disagree.

 

[parsifal]

I don't disagree that Sherman and Grant were great generals. Lee was better.

There were some horrific outcomes during the ACW, both for civilians and for the treatment of prisoners. I thinkl both sides engaged in that behaviour.


At the time of the ACW there were no binding international or national laws on the conduct of war. The world existed in the climate of "might is right" and relied on the code of honour which not all officers adhered to..

Between 1865 and 1895 rules about how to conduct wars began to emerge. Whilst I haven't researched it properly, it seems likely to me that the US experiences in the ACW influenced that push. Another influence came slightly later, during the Boer war, which was also pretty bad. The long term result of that was the Hague conventions in 1907.

New weapons like submarines generally frightened nations. Even in the areas of devising rules of warfare there were political undertones at work. The rules of warfare in the attacks on shipping were designed to make it difficult for a submarine to be effective. That came to light during WWI. The stop and search rules of neutral, the navcert system were all quite separate to that, and the treatment of enemy shipwreck survivors were quite separate to that issue. Later the treatment of downed airmen were also included in the mix, as well as what to do with spies and sabateurs.

The bombing of civilians was not considered, though the use of gas from the air was considered. .

 

[parsifal]

Edit:

I forgot about something arising from the ACW

The experiences in the early part of the war led Lincoln in April 1863 to promulgate Order Number 100, more generally known as the 'lieber code" named after the German professor of that name who lived in South Carolina and had seen the mistreatment of slaves first hand. A veteran of the Napoleonic wars he had also seen the poor treatment of prisoners during that war.

The Lieber code was ignored by Sherman but it at least was used to try some hundreds of cases for war crimes after the war. It formed the main basis of the first Hague convention.

The Hague conventions were promoted by all the major nations, but in particular Russia (under the tsar) and Imperial Germany. So in a sense you are right, the Germans were influenced by what they witnessed during the ACW, though perhaps not as you had surmised. The Germans were strong supporters of both the hague conventions and the Geneva conventions and their officers were well acquainted to the principals behind it. That perhaps explains why so many refused to follow hitlers (and Doenitz's) illegal orders


Edit of the edit
Here is a link to the Lieber Code


Avalon Project - General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code


Article 16 of the code states

"Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult" .

 

[The Basket]

Nazi law was in effect not German law.
Führerprinzip. Try impeaching Hitler in 1942.

I doubt you could deliberately go against the Commando order but it's easily fudged.

This Commando was shipwrecked or lost or something else. The wording gives plenty of wriggle room for those who want to find it.

General Dostler was shot for following the Commando order. And Kesselring who ordered it wasn't. That's law in action for you.