What precedent did the Nuremberg Trials set for U.S. military obedience and illegal orders?

1. Nuremberg's legal turning point: codifying that orders don't erase responsibility

The London Agreement and the Charter that created the International Military Tribunal in 1945 explicitly framed trials for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity and removed the right to use obedience to superior orders as an absolute defense — making accountability of individuals central to the enterprise ^{[1] [2]}. Contemporary coverage and legal summaries emphasize that the IMT and the subsequent U.S. military tribunals rejected a blanket immunity for subordinates, instead allowing obedience only to be considered as a possible mitigating circumstance in sentencing, not as a complete exoneration ^{[2] [5]}.

2. How that precedent influenced U.S. military cases and doctrine

U.S. military lawyers and commentators have long pointed to Nuremberg when arguing that U.S. service members cannot hide behind orders to avoid responsibility for atrocities. Gary Solis, a former Marine JAG and scholar, has said the key result of Nuremberg is that obedience is no longer a defense to war crimes — an argument invoked in later U.S. prosecutions such as the My Lai prosecutions ^[3]. Academic work tracing doctrine from Nuremberg to later practice likewise shows U.S. prosecutors applying the tribunal’s rules in U.S. postwar trials and in doctrine that treats the soldier's obedience as not equivalent to automatic exoneration ^[5].

3. Judicial reasoning and moral framing: individuals, not states

Nuremberg’s prosecutors framed the enterprise in personalist terms: crimes are committed by persons who can be tried and punished, not by abstract states — a principle undergirded in Robert H. Jackson’s rhetoric and reiterated by later commentators who argued that absolute obedience amounted to abdication of moral responsibility ^{[6] [7]}. That philosophical framing reinforced the legal decision to hold leaders and subordinates individually accountable rather than treating command authorization as dispositive ^[6].

4. Limits and contested legacy: implementation, politics and unequal application

Scholars and commentators point out that the promise of universal accountability has been uneven. Critics say the principles of Nuremberg have not been applied equally to victors or in real‑time foreign policy; Washington’s later conduct and political choices sometimes avoided comparable scrutiny, producing a perception of selective application or impunity ^[4]. Historical accounts note further limits: some Nuremberg follow‑on tribunals and decisions drew criticism for inconsistencies — for example, certain judgments around bombing or reprisal killings — and early U.S. decisions about publication and later pardons complicated the educational and deterrent effect ^{[1] [8]}.

5. Practical refuge for soldiers: narrow exceptions recognized by tribunals

While the IMT rejected an absolute defense of superior orders, the courts acknowledged practical limits: if a subordinate obeyed an order under immediate threat to life (for example, compelled at gunpoint), that could be a valid excuse; judges in specific trials explained that a soldier is not an automaton but also not always free to disobey threats of death or torture ^{[9] [5]}. Educational materials used to teach military ethics emphasize this narrow exception and the tribunal’s insistence that most participants in crimes such as the Einsatzgruppen could not plausibly claim ignorance or involuntary compulsion ^[9].

6. Two competing readings today: moral imperative vs. geopolitical reality

Supporters of Nuremberg’s legacy stress that its core message forces individual moral judgment and restrains blind obedience — a foundation for modern humanitarian law and military training ^{[7] [6]}. Critics and realists emphasize the gulf between principle and practice: they argue that state power, political decisions to pardon or not prosecute allies, and the lack of universal enforcement have diluted Nuremberg’s universalist promise ^{[4] [8]}. Both readings appear in the recent literature and film coverage that revisit Nuremberg’s meaning for contemporary audiences ^{[7] [10]}.

Conclusion: Nuremberg changed the legal landscape by removing automatic immunity for obedience to orders and making individual responsibility central ^{[2] [1]}, but available reporting and scholarship also stress important reservations about exceptions, selective enforcement and political limits to how broadly those principles have been applied in practice ^{[9] [4]}.