2. Conclusion: Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) summary of findings and recommendations. Ex: Based on my findings, there appears to be enough evidence to suggest that SGT X is responsible for Y. He did X, Y, and Z which shows A, B, and C.
a. Short, three-four sentence paragraphs
b. Each describing relevant information you discovered during your investigation
c. All information should be objective fact, things that would not be objected to by any party involved.
d. Each fact should be followed by a reference to where the information comes from in the evidence.
Instructors should guide participants through the process of determining relevant facts,
including, although not limited to, the list below:
a. Nazi dehumanization of Jews
b. Lack of partisan activity
c. Institutional army history of brutality against civilians
d. Higher command guidance
e. Presence of SS and a mobile killing unit in the AO
f. Commichau’s direct order, reaffirmed
g. Company commander political membership; Nazi Party vs. SS
h. Leadership style different among company commanders
i. Company culture possibly different j. Mogilev Conference, which encouraged cooperation between SS and Army; and included demonstrations at the tactical level, which showed that for higher command, “partisan” equals “Jew”
j. ROE and implied ROE (Mogilev)
k. Company commanders with different prior military experience
l. Sibille suffering no real repercussion
ANSWER: It is clear that soldiers’ orders came from the superiors and there was no room to dispute the rules even if they conflicted with individual values and beliefs. There were different groups (1st, 2nd, and 3rd company) waiting for the orders to be implemented exclusively. The killings were carried out on innocent Jewish civilians in the name of killing the partisans. Some commanders disputed and even refused to carry out the execution orders, for example, Lieutenant Josef Sibille (pg. 11). Additionally, the military would assume control through increased penetration and this brought establishment of headquarters in different towns such as the Belarusian town of Krugloye (pg. 11).
It is through meetings the German-Soviet Union would resolve the decisions to kill more Jewish civilians. After the Mogilev conference, more than 778,000 people were shot to death in the name of partisans’ elimination, but it was more of an obsession than a mission. The meetings were centered on increasing the military prevalence in the village to conduct a house search to find the enemy. Their code was that they had to act ruthlessly to contain the situation even if it meant killing everyone in the area of operation. But the funny part was that in the report the Jews were not mentioned, and their purpose was misunderstood to catalyze bringing rHGM and Wehrmacht formations in line with Nazi (pg. 14).
a. What are the relevant facts and circumstances that led to the execution of Civilians by 1st Battalion, 691st Infantry Regiment that took place on or about 6 or 7 October 1941 in Occupied Belarus? By relevant, I mean that I want you to identify those facts that had an impact on what happened.
i) Answer… a written order was placed about the execution of Jews in Krucha through company leadership. These orders were made against the soldiers act when they refused to accept order for killing innocent people. A soldier named Wilhelm Magel, along with other sergeant who was topologist and doctor felt grieved and disobeyed the order. Same thing happened to other soldiers and they were reluctant to kill people. For this the order were made to kill all Jews by the leadership saying that “as long as the Jews are not eliminated, we will not have any peace from the partisans”. The emotional reaction of the soldiers caused this execution as they were against the violent killing and physical revulsion.
b. What standards do you identify as being relevant to the decision making processes of the company commanders and the one company’s first sergeant in determining whether and how they complied with 1st Battalions Commander’s order to execute the Civilians in their respective AOs? By relevant standards, I mean professional ethics, legal requirements, moral and religious or philosophical codes.
i) Answer…moral and religious codes were codes were taken during the decision making process of the company commanders. Morally the first sergeant of 1st company was not obliged to execute Jews. They felt is wrong ethically for legitimate targeting of innocent people. Some of the soldiers felt ashamed of their act and other denied the order of the company. Company took legal actions against those soldiers but in whole these events got against people and they were executed to legally disobeying orders.
c. Applying the relevant standards to the relevant facts, what are your findings? Were any standards not met by the commanders and the one company’s first sergeant? Do you identify any conflicts in positive values in these leaders’ decision-making, such as loyalty to the chain of command versus loyalty to the troops?
i) Answer… these standards are applied in case of all but the military actions are done against all odds. Empirical thinking demands to execute those who are ready to execute your race. In this the military orders were legal but in case of innocence people the words goes against company and the first sergeant is true in his perceptions. As far as military command is concerned it is more relevant in obeying orders rather thinking against action. Leadership is true about making peace after sweeping terrorist activities. They are ethically positive in making a chain in order acceptance. During war it is said to kill the enemy before he kill you in group. But loyalty is something different from orders. Loyalty is emotion whereas orders are without any emotion. Orders are to be accepted in any case while loyalty depends. As in case of the execution Jew killed Jews and after killing their people they haphazardly conceal their sin by burying them in same grave. Loyalty is essential for same creed but not for other. Orders are kept as orders by others. There is no loyalty when the distinction and discrimination is ethically proven.
Instructors should assist participants in applying the standards to the facts to develop
a. Military Necessity: No evidence existed of a partisan threat in general or that Jews in 1st Battalion AO were partisans or had been helping partisans. Shootings of Jews, therefore, occurred without military necessity.
b. Distinction: Jews were targeted as so-called “racial” enemies, were not taking a direct part in hostilities, and were not displaying hostile intent or hostile acts.
c. Unnecessary Suffering: Jews who were rounded up in the square heard the
screams of those being executed, and the marksmanship at the killing site was poor, requiring additional shots from executioners.
d. Proportionality: Because no military necessity existed, no direct and concrete
military advantage would be gained; therefore, killing even one civilian would have been excessive.
e. Command Responsibility: Commichau, Kuhls, Nöll, and Zimber knew or should
have known that killing the Jewish civilians was unlawful.
f. Obedience to Orders: Each of these four leaders should have also known that the order was illegal. Sibille sought clarification, received reaffirmation of the order, and refused to comply. Nöll hoped to ignore the order, but once the written order was received, he directed Zimber to carry it out.
a. Recommendations of policy changes or unit trainings to avoid similar problems in the future.
(1) Leadership vs. followership
(2) With whom do you form this bond? On what basis?
(3) What are the elements of mentorship?
(4) What are your core values? How do your actions reflect your core values?
(5) How can the best unit learn from noncommissioned officers (NCOs)?
(1) Good vs. Good bad role models – who do you study, and why? Does the mix work best?
(2) Holism-can you integrate ethics, morals, leadership, law, and history?
(1) How is discipline enforced? What is tolerated?
(2) Legal discipline vs. moral discipline
(1) Who conducts the training?
(2) Are you, as a commander, conducting the training, or are you defaulting to judge advocate?
(1) How are they structured?
(2) Do you use role players? How good are they?
(3) Do situational training exercises push the edge in developing judgment in complex situations?
f. Command Climate
(1) How well do you understand the life experiences of your NCOs?
(2) How does your commander interact with you and your peers?
(3) How do your soldiers perceive what you really care about and what is not as great a priority ("expect what you inspect")?
Need a similar essay? We have qualified writers who can assist. Click ORDER NOW to get a special bonus- Up to 18% Discount Offer!!!