This article on the BBC website led me to the Youtube clip.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23468227

He's never going to repent, never.

Seems to me that the thing that offends people is that he does not want to repent.

Another example of people wanting to persecute people for his opinions, rather than what he has done.

The judge had it right. His opinions are irrelevant, so long as they don;t affect the likelihood that he will re-offend. Personally, I think that it is unlikely he will re-offend.

SC

It sounds like Rome agrees with that old Nazi.

So I'm assuming Italy doesn't have the death penalty.

He should have been put in prison.

Not a matter of his speech. He was found guilty of crimes.

It sounds like Rome agrees with that old Nazi.

So I'm assuming Italy doesn't have the death penalty.

He should have been put in prison.

Not a matter of his speech. He was found guilty of crimes.

Correct. And for whatever reason - I believe compassion towards the elderly, a view with which I have little sympathy - he was placed under house arrest. It would have been far more convenient for us all if he had been guillotined many years ago, so that we could put that horrific episode of our history behind us, and pretend it was carried out by monsters, and not young men not so different from our own grandparents.

How do you feel that his crimes differed from the heroism of Bomber Harris or the men that flew Enola Gay?

SC

I found it intriguing that he was so matter of fact about it all.

I don't believe though that he should still be in prison, there comes a point where compassion and rehabilitation have to come to the fore. Otherwise we just end up on a roundabout of revenge.

I can't say what I'd like to happen to him, even in Bedlam.

Bomber Harris

Total war was justified. The Nazis had to be crushed to save western civilization.

or the men that flew Enola Gay

Following orders. The orders were probably flawed.

The Nazi we are talking about was convicted of going BEYOND following orders murdering more civilians than were required in the orders.

I can't say what I'd like to happen to him, even in Bedlam.

Sadly in crime and punishment, we cannot rely upon misfortune, and we must soil ourselves with the vindictive sin of spiteful punishment if we want it to be meted out. Personally, I am grateful to the judges who deem, on our behalf, what is appropriate.

SC

I can't say what I'd like to happen to him, even in Bedlam.

Sadly in crime and punishment, we cannot rely upon misfortune, and we must soil ourselves with the vindictive sin of spiteful punishment if we want it to be meted out. Personally, I am grateful to the judges who deem, on our behalf, what is appropriate.

SC

I didn't know you were a preacher. I really don't like Nazis. I don't make excuses for that.

I can't say what I'd like to happen to him, even in Bedlam.

Sadly in crime and punishment, we cannot rely upon misfortune, and we must soil ourselves with the vindictive sin of spiteful punishment if we want it to be meted out. Personally, I am grateful to the judges who deem, on our behalf, what is appropriate.

SC

I didn't know you were a preacher. I really don't like Nazis. I don't make excuses for that.

We all have our prejudices

We all have our prejudices

Hilarious statement in the context of Nazis. I think you're just trying to be provocative for sport. You know what Nazis represent.

We all have our prejudices

Hilarious statement in the context of Nazis. I think you're just trying to be provocative for sport. You know what Nazis represent.

No, I don't. I know the crimes that the German Nazi party committed, and I understand the harm that national socialist governments can do, but I see that as much as a warning to myself and as a reminder to my friends than anything else. Sadly, many of us cannot see their own flaws, even when they are so obvious in other people.

SC

If someone doesn't know what Nazis mean today (they are now Neo-Nazis) they can solve that gap in their knowledge with a little google magic.

I would consider lack of knowledge on what Nazis represent to be a personal flaw, yes.

Cheers.

The Enola Gay was on a righteous mission. The US had no choice.

The Enola Gay was on a righteous mission. The US had no choice.

That is debatable when you study the actual history of where the war was at at that stage. Especially the Russian side. I grew up with a close relative of Paul Tibbets and he used to brag about that a lot. I didn't learn the actual history until long after school days. But in this case, if it was a mistake, it's on Truman, not Tibbets.

The Enola Gay was on a righteous mission. The US had no choice.

We can all say that.

Well according to my research President Trueman asked how many American casualties there would be if a land invasion of the Japanese mainland took place. The figure came back at 1 million dead and wounded.

Based upon the evidence of the land fighting in the Pacific Theatre that figure was not unbelievable. The next debate was whether or not to drop the bomb in the ocean, and it was reckoned that it wouldn't have had the necessary effect on the Japanese psyche.

So they went ahead and dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and even then the Japanese procrastinated about surrender, only after Nagasaki did the hands go up.

Maybe my research is wrong, but I honestly believe that those bombs saved lives on both sides.

Well according to my research President Trueman asked how many American casualties there would be if a land invasion of the Japanese mainland took place. The figure came back at 1 million dead and wounded.

Based upon the evidence of the land fighting in the Pacific Theatre that figure was not unbelievable. The next debate was whether or not to drop the bomb in the ocean, and it was reckoned that it wouldn't have had the necessary effect on the Japanese psyche.

So they went ahead and dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and even then the Japanese procrastinated about surrender, only after Nagasaki did the hands go up.

Maybe my research is wrong, but I honestly believe that those bombs saved lives on both sides.

I've heard some debate about whether the Nagasaki bomb was dropped quickly, before Japan could reach a decision, in order to test the technology.

I am not aware that there's ever been a formula for equivalencing enemy civilian casualties with friendly military casualties that has ever been publicly accepted by the friendly civilian family members of late military personnel

SC

Ah but there lies the problem, a soldier is still a human, he is just as entitled to go home to his family as anyone else.

If you want to be pedantic about it you could say that a volunteer has knowingly put himself in harms way, you can't say that about conscripts.

I'm always wary of believing everything I see, however when I read the runes of the decision here, I can judge that the Japanese fanaticism was a real and present danger, and the order that everyone, civilian and military, was to fight to the death to protect the Imperial homeland, believable.

The President had a duty of care for his military personnel, and based upon the intelligence gathered, and fanaticism demonstrated by the Kamikaze and Banzai charges, he really had no choice but to drop these bombs.

Ah but there lies the problem, a soldier is still a human, he is just as entitled to go home to his family as anyone else.

If you want to be pedantic about it you could say that a volunteer has knowingly put himself in harms way, you can't say that about conscripts.

I'm always wary of believing everything I see, however when I read the runes of the decision here, I can judge that the Japanese fanaticism was a real and present danger, and the order that everyone, civilian and military, was to fight to the death to protect the Imperial homeland, believable.

The President had a duty of care for his military personnel, and based upon the intelligence gathered, and fanaticism demonstrated by the Kamikaze and Banzai charges, he really had no choice but to drop these bombs.

And the President of the US and their generals have a duty of care towards their servicemen, but not necessarilly towards enemy combatants or civilians. Similar to the Gestapo.

SC

edit Out of interest, how many war criminals have been tried by a jury of their peers, in accordance with the Common Law? For all that it is a foreign construct, I have some faith in the common law, despite its reliance on the common man

You don't need to persuade me that victors justice prevails, I know there are plenty of British and American servicemen who were guilty of war crimes during WW2, ( and since).

I also know the deprivations that allied POW's visited upon each other as my Uncle wrote a book detailing it.

That doesn't get away from the fact that President Trueman was justified in his decision.

You don't need to persuade me that victors justice prevails, I know there are plenty of British and American servicemen who were guilty of war crimes during WW2, ( and since).

I also know the deprivations that allied POW's visited upon each other as my Uncle wrote a book detailing it.

That doesn't get away from the fact that President Trueman was justified in his decision.

I thought this thread was about a gestapo soldier who followed orders. Truman gave the orders to kill civilians, and he was right. A gestapo soldier followed orders - he was not a great statesman - but he, apparently, was wrong. For my part... well, let's hope I'm never asked by my conscience to take up arms against my colleagues and country,

SC

Ah but there lies the problem, a soldier is still a human, he is just as entitled to go home to his family as anyone else.

If you want to be pedantic about it you could say that a volunteer has knowingly put himself in harms way, you can't say that about conscripts.

I'm always wary of believing everything I see, however when I read the runes of the decision here, I can judge that the Japanese fanaticism was a real and present danger, and the order that everyone, civilian and military, was to fight to the death to protect the Imperial homeland, believable.

The President had a duty of care for his military personnel, and based upon the intelligence gathered, and fanaticism demonstrated by the Kamikaze and Banzai charges, he really had no choice but to drop these bombs.

Relatavism is a knotty problem with few easy answers.

Priebke oversaw and took part in the execution of 335 civilians (75 of whom were Jewish) in retaliation for the partisan attack that had killed 33 SS paramilitary police the previous day in Rome. The victims were rounded up fairly indiscriminately to hit the quota of 10 to 1 that had been decreed (five extra victims were rounded up in the haste but were murdered anyway to remove witnesses). A fairly cut and dry case of a war crime you would have thought but with interesting/sad spin offs.

One of Berlusconi's papers, Il Giornale, in the 1990's drove a campaign to label the partisans, whose ambush of the SS was the excuse for the massacre, as terrorists (mainly because they were a communist band of partisans), and equate their actions with that of the SS.

On a personal note I had a great uncle who served in the Spanish Civil War (he later went on to have a distinguished irregular career, helping establish the Commandos ("United we Conquer" for Blether"s benefit), and served with the SOE and other organizations). In late 1938 his unit picked up a deserter from N.Ireland. By this stage of the war it was widely believed that foreign intervention had both lengthened and intensified the civil war and thus it was fairly common practice to shoot foreign prisoners. As his company commander was no great fan of Britain he ordered my great uncle to take the prisoner out and shoot him. 2 soldiers from the company were dispatched after he left their position and it was clear that they had orders to ensure that the act was carried out. To his lifelong regret he shot the man, knowing the consequence of a failure to do so. Does that make him a murderer and a war criminal on a par with Priebke or is the scale of the murders and the random nature of the victims of the Adreatine Caves in 1944 radically different?

He went BEYOND following orders. Next time find a different Nazi if you want to make your following orders argument.

He went BEYOND following orders. Next time find a different Nazi if you want to make your following orders argument.

I'm glad you're not on my team. I suggest you stick to refereeing, if you can hold back your partisanship

SC

He went BEYOND following orders. Next time find a different Nazi if you want to make your following orders argument.

I'm glad you're not on my team. I suggest you stick to refereeing, if you can hold back your partisanship

SC

Proudly anti-Nazi! It's shameful to be anything else.

Really you DID pick the wrong Nazi because this one had evidence of going beyond orders against him so your pure orders meme is down the drain.

He went BEYOND following orders. Next time find a different Nazi if you want to make your following orders argument.

Not sure if you are referring to Priebke or my great uncle! The latter was certainly no Nazi.

On your point about operating beyond orders, actually the Nurmburg Trials Principle IV removed the validity of a defence based on obeying orders. Initially Priebke was acquitted by an Italian court as he was " only obeying orders". Ultimately this defence was rejected using the Principle IV argument but also by stating that the 5 "extra" victims (335 rather than 330 to match the 10 for 1 collective punishment order) were Priebke's responsibility alone and that he went beyond his orders and was therefore culpable.

Unfortunately the same principle implies that my great-uncle was also responsible for his actions and thus committed a war crime......

He went BEYOND following orders. Next time find a different Nazi if you want to make your following orders argument.

Not sure if you are referring to Priebke or my great uncle! The latter was certainly no Nazi.

On your point about operating beyond orders, actually the Nurmburg Trials Principle IV removed the validity of a defence based on obeying orders. Initially Priebke was acquitted by an Italian court as he was " only obeying orders". Ultimately this defence was rejected using the Principle IV argument but also by stating that the 5 "extra" victims (335 rather than 330 to match the 10 for 1 collective punishment order) were Priebke's responsibility alone and that he went beyond his orders and was therefore culpable.

Unfortunately the same principle implies that my great-uncle was also responsible for his actions and thus committed a war crime......

About your relative, I don't get your point. War criminals have relatives.

Unless you give more specific info about what your relative did, we have no idea what you are talking about, and whether he might legitimately be considered a war criminal or not.

On a related note -- my aunt married an Italian mafioso. That doesn't mean I am an Italian mafioso.

He went BEYOND following orders. Next time find a different Nazi if you want to make your following orders argument.

Not sure if you are referring to Priebke or my great uncle! The latter was certainly no Nazi.

On your point about operating beyond orders, actually the Nurmburg Trials Principle IV removed the validity of a defence based on obeying orders. Initially Priebke was acquitted by an Italian court as he was " only obeying orders". Ultimately this defence was rejected using the Principle IV argument but also by stating that the 5 "extra" victims (335 rather than 330 to match the 10 for 1 collective punishment order) were Priebke's responsibility alone and that he went beyond his orders and was therefore culpable.

Unfortunately the same principle implies that my great-uncle was also responsible for his actions and thus committed a war crime......

About your relative, I don't get your point. War criminals have relatives.

Read my post immediately before your post that starts

"He went BEYOND following orders". My question about Who you were referring to relates to this post, ie who is the he?

But as stated the Nuremburg defence has been rejected as a valid excuse, and thus Priebke was/is responsible for his actions and he personally murdered at least 2 of the victims by his own testimony.

Not sure what you meant about going beyond his orders, are you referring to the extra 5 victims, but anyway the point is moot as per Nuremburg PrincipleIV.

Oy vey. I was referring to the 100 year old Nazi, the topic of this thread.

He went BEYOND following orders. Next time find a different Nazi if you want to make your following orders argument.

Not sure if you are referring to Priebke or my great uncle! The latter was certainly no Nazi.

On your point about operating beyond orders, actually the Nurmburg Trials Principle IV removed the validity of a defence based on obeying orders. Initially Priebke was acquitted by an Italian court as he was " only obeying orders". Ultimately this defence was rejected using the Principle IV argument but also by stating that the 5 "extra" victims (335 rather than 330 to match the 10 for 1 collective punishment order) were Priebke's responsibility alone and that he went beyond his orders and was therefore culpable.

Unfortunately the same principle implies that my great-uncle was also responsible for his actions and thus committed a war crime......

About your relative, I don't get your point. War criminals have relatives.

Unless you give more specific info about what your relative did, we have no idea what you are talking about, and whether he might legitimately be considered a war criminal or not.

On a related note -- my aunt married an Italian mafioso. That doesn't mean I am an Italian mafioso.

Obviously not Jingthing does not end with a vowel!