That’s not accurate. Germany had a strict top-down chain of military command, hence the Nuremberg trials defense of “just following orders.”
The Nuremberg trials, like most international laws were an invention of convenience. If someone attempted to apply them to US action in a foreign intervention today, they would not be successful. In fact the US has stated that they would sooner invade a system like the ICC than allow them to prosecute anyone in the military.
After the trials, the US military was redesigned with a break above the Commanding Officer. The CO must verify the legality and constitutionality of orders before giving orders to the troops, just as it’s the responsibility of the troops to refuse to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders.
This may be a fact in doctrine, but in practice the military has historically has failed to fulfill this particular commitment. There have been several examples of US troops committing illegal actions commanded by officers without legal retribution.
You can refuse to follow orders you think are illegal, but more often than not it's a career ending action or punishable offense if not proven in court.....and military court is not exactly a non biased apparatus of justice.
This system depends on young soldiers with minimal educations and rights to stand up to a system that has an immencse amount of control over their lives. A system that has proven to defend higher command and officers in most cases, and to defend its overall image over anything.
Even higher commands ability to stand up to the commander in chief is limited, we can see this in the news today with active duty military members being deployed state side to conduct what is fairly obvious policing actions in LA and on the US border in a direct violation of posse comitatus.