tricked into believing that their fight was just, and that they were doing the right thing.
Propaganda and a sense of duty
would fool any brave person. Operating with the assumption
that the German soldiers were misled by their government, and that all aggressors mislead their
soldiers, means that both sides of an engagement are on the same moral plane. German and
Allied soldiers
believed that they were fighting the good fight.
This is in contrast to a bank robbery scenario. A thief
kills a guard because the guard was
reaching for his gun. The thief in court claims that he was only acting in self defense, so he
should be acquitted. The court overrules this argument because the thief had no right to rob the
bank in the first place, and that the guard was only doing his duty and trying to stop the thief.
This is not the case with soldiers. While some might feel that the aggressors troops are murdering
the defenders, like the thief, this is not the case. The combatants are required to be involved in
the engagement, unlike the bank robbery, the soldiers have to fight, to protect their country, their
homes. Even the aggressor is engaging in war for a reason, and the fighting itself becomes a life
or death situation. Even in a situation that has a soldiers life depending on the outcome, there are
rules. These rules tell us what is morally acceptable, and what is not. A
bank robbery has no
rules which is why the thief must be punished,
but the moral equality of soldiers, who adhere to
the rules of warfare, separate combatants from criminals.
An excellent example of Jus in Bello is with the case of General Rommel in World War
Two.
General Rommel was seen by many, and especially the allies as an honorable man. Many
of the Generals under Hitler were blindly following his orders, committing war crimes and
dismissing the teachings of Jus in Bello. However Rommel did not act this way. Hitler sent him
an order, to kill captured commandos, and anyone who crossed the German line.
Rommel
ignored these orders, and furthermore his division in north Africa was never accused of a war
crime.
Walzer asks why, even though Rommel was fighting an unjust war, how come his actions
are seen as memorable. Walzer continues to define the difference between Jus ad Bellum and Jus
in Bello. Walzer says "We draw a line between the war itself, for which soldiers are not
responsible, and the conduct of war, for which they are responsible, at least within their own
sphere of activity" (Walzer 39).
This distinction shows that the solider does not lead, but
follows, and that he must make the best decisions he can, within the boundaries that are set by
the country or group that he is fighting for.
The actions of Soldiers are not always infallible, hiding behind a moral shield of their
government. In the case of the Italian Women during World War Two.
In Italy, Moroccan
mercenaries were fighting Free French Forces around 1943. These Mercenaries had signed a
contract, or a license, which allowed them to rape and plunder the enemy territory.
The
Utilitarian argument for allowing soldiers to rape and plunder states that soldiers need the
