Auschwitz guard, 89, arrested in US

[Ulysses G.]

Just think about that when pretty much the exact same posters make excuses and justifications for Islamic terrorists on other threads. There does seem to be an agenda here.

[Saradoc1972]

My posts have little to do with one controversial book. They are based on the fact that he volunteered for the SS and that thousands of women, children and old people were killed in gas chambers after arriving at Auschwitz. and that there is no way that he did not know what was going on. "Befehl ist Befehl" - "Orders are Orders" - did not work as a excuse for the Nazis at Nuremberg and it should not work for this guy who ran away from his sins.

Again, implementing the "Final Solution" - the German plan to murder each and every Jew - started in 1941 - long before D Day.

You are correct in that SS members, most notably the "Totenkopf-Verbände" (Death's Head-Units, they literally wore a skull on their uniform), knew exactly what they were doing if they were directly involved in guarding or even organizing those camps.

Final solution definitely started 1941 after Wannsee-Konferenz and while shortage of supply might have been the cause of additional deaths round the end of WW2 by that time camp crews tried to get rid of the evidence against them, i.e, survivors, as fast as possible.

They knew what was coming if (or rather: when) the war was lost and self-inflicted wounds inside their left upper arms where their blood-group had been tatooed in, as this would have identified them as SS members.

Your reference to "Befehl ist Befehl" is not altogether correct, can be looked up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility. "Befehlsnotstand" (i.e. carry out orders or be executed yourself) would not be a valid defense for the high-ups and individuals who had gone on a rampage under the circumstances, such as Ilse Koch or other camp-guardian celebrities. It could be denied as a defense for officers, but not when they only held "subaltern positions" and were in no postion to prevent anything.

So if our guy was a mere trooper, having "volunteered" under whatever circumstances, he would not have been put on trial even immediately after the war, he'd have had a hard time during the de-nazification process and possibly have been barred from holding offices in Germany.

[h90]

Leave the old man alone??? So if someone does some horrible crimes and doesn't get caught before a certain age, we should just ' leave them alone'

And obviously Germany has good enough evidence for an arrest warrant, not just something they heard from someone one time

What will you achieve by punishing an old man who might not even be fit enough to remember it. There is anyway little risk that he is doing it again....whatever he did as guard.

[Ulysses G.]

Leave the old man alone??? So if someone does some horrible crimes and doesn't get caught before a certain age, we should just ' leave them alone'

And obviously Germany has good enough evidence for an arrest warrant, not just something they heard from someone one time

What will you achieve by punishing an old man who might not even be fit enough to remember it.

Make an example out of him for possible future mass murderers and get some justice for the victims that never got the chance to live until they were 89 years old.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[transam]

Leave the old man alone??? So if someone does some horrible crimes and doesn't get caught before a certain age, we should just ' leave them alone'

And obviously Germany has good enough evidence for an arrest warrant, not just something they heard from someone one time

What will you achieve by punishing an old man who might not even be fit enough to remember it. There is anyway little risk that he is doing it again....whatever he did as guard.

Lets turn it around a bit. If Your wife was taken from you, humiliated, had her gold teeth pulled out, gassed then chucked on a pile of dead folk waiting to be burned, would YOU forget, or would you clap your hands if one of these murdering scrotes were found ?

[Saradoc1972]

Leave the old man alone??? So if someone does some horrible crimes and doesn't get caught before a certain age, we should just ' leave them alone'

And obviously Germany has good enough evidence for an arrest warrant, not just something they heard from someone one time

What will you achieve by punishing an old man who might not even be fit enough to remember it.

Make an example out of him for possible future mass murderers and get some justice for the victims that never got the chance to live until they were 89 years old.

Sorry to burst your bubble, if you're even reading my posts.

Case is a German one and will be put to trial in Germany, if it even comes to that. As per sine lega scripta and a German law from 1913 he'll go to a juvenile court on grounds of having been 19-y-o max at the end of WW2.

Making an example of s.o. is not an option ina German juvenile court. This is not the US where they jail up clinically retarded 14-year-olds killing their baby sisters reenacting TV-wrestling for life, if you catch my drift (real case, look it up).

Maximum penalty will be 8 years.

Considerations for penalizing people in criminal courts are (basic criminology, vaild in Germany, the UK, rest of Europe and purportedly and in theory in the US):

1) personal prevention - subject is to be deterred from commiting that crime or crimes in general ever again

2) rehablitation - subject is to be made a functioning member of society once again. Have a read: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/sugarman/Sports_Stories_-_Monica_Seles.pdf (in English, mostly on insanity pleas, but takes a good look at German ideas of rehabilitaion from an US point of view)

3) general prevention - other potential criminals are to be made aware there will be punishment for this crime

4) retribution - state takes revenge for "breaking the peace" - in most of Europe a minor point by now

Point 1) and 2) are clearly out of the question, our guy is not in a shape to commit the same crime again, and most probably any other crime. Kept out of trouble for 7 decades.

Points 3) and 4) are prohibited as a consideration in a German juvenile court by law.

For 3) it's a little late now, too, unless you follow Kant to the end with "fiat ius, pereat mundi", an opinion you are entitled to.

"Leave the old man alone" might not cut it, it might be morally right to come to a verdict here.

Possibly a law should be made where he and others in his age group can "just own up, not have a lengthy diffcult trial, not go to prison and have no financial repercussions, whatever, get a token verdict" if admitting to actual guilt. But if he's not guilty of anything, as he claims, that would not keep some people from still calling for his head.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Saradoc1972

[simple1]

Just think about that when pretty much the exact same posters make excuses and justifications for Islamic terrorists on other threads. There does seem to be an agenda here.

No problem with you countering posters POV, but the highlighted wording in relation to this topic is a really ugly accusation.

Off topic:

Differing opinions as to the root causes / rise of Islamic extremism in today's world, but don't recall anyone excusing / justifying Islamic extremism.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[bkkgooner]

Sick... Leave the old man alone unless there is conclusive proof of the allegations.

Why did they not chase the big money Nazis to Peru and Chile?

He already admitted to being a guard at Auschwitz if you think him standing outside while people were enslaved, tortured and murdered somehow makes him innocent then you really are a bit odd.

[Rob8891]

To get back on topic (how unfashionable of me!)

One of the most haunting days of my life was 5 years ago, when I was taken to see Auschwitz-Birkenau. God alone knows what it was like for the prisoners. There can be no statute of limitations for anyone who may have been involved in such a crime against humanity.

Sad to see that yet again a serious thread had been hijacked by fragile egos and petty point scoring.

[Saradoc1972]

To get back on topic (how unfashionable of me!)

One of the most haunting days of my life was 5 years ago, when I was taken to see Auschwitz-Birkenau. God alone knows what it was like for the prisoners. There can be no statute of limitations for anyone who may have been involved in such a crime against humanity.

Sad to see that yet again a serious thread had been hijacked by fragile egos and petty point scoring.

Been there, too, some 23 years ago.

You might be right about the statute of limitation, it's a moral decision. But the whole thing is drawing to a close about now because of age, so some thought should be given to finding a practical solution. The current procedural provisions simply have ceased to work,

Edited June 20, 2014 by Saradoc1972

[Morch]

To get back on topic (how unfashionable of me!)

One of the most haunting days of my life was 5 years ago, when I was taken to see Auschwitz-Birkenau. God alone knows what it was like for the prisoners. There can be no statute of limitations for anyone who may have been involved in such a crime against humanity.

Sad to see that yet again a serious thread had been hijacked by fragile egos and petty point scoring.

Been there, too, some 23 years ago.

You might be right about the statute of limitation, it's a moral decision. But the whole thing is drawing to a close about now because of age, so some thought should be given to finding a practical solution. The current procedural provisions simply have ceased to work,

Perhaps the criteria ought to be age of survivors, not the accused.

Even so, this is not going to be an issue much longer, survivors possibly being a decade or so younger.

Also worth noting that most of the people standing trial or on wanted lists are held relatively junior roles back then, the higher

ups, being somewhat older, probably gone by now.

[Credo]

It does feel like this guy is pretty old, but I do believe it is up to the court to decide how important his role was and his culpability for any crimes.

[Pakboong]

It will be interesting to read the transcript of the trial and see how aiding abetting will be defined and defended. The defense will also be interesting. Following these trials in German courts can be quite interesting to say the least. Perhaps the most interesting was when the judge at the last Ernst Zundle trial makes the point that "Truth is not a defense". If the individual did what he is accused of doing and what he is accused of doing is a violation of the law, he is guilty.

Zundle's defense team made a serious tactical error and put the Holocaust on trial and that had no chance for a defensive success. He was accused of denying the Holocaust and that is what he did. Whether or not there actually was a Holocaust had nothing to do with the charge or the verdict.

The Demjanjuk trial was similar but Demjanjuk had hands on experience inside Sobidor with the inmates. He was a Ukrainian who was captured in Kiev in 1941 with the rest of the Ukrainian Army. I was pretty confident that he was guilty of the crimes for which he was charged as there was a lot of eye witness testimony. The case of why the Ukrainians were so willing has a lot to do with what is going on in the Ukraine today. You could probably take any Ukrainian guard and find him guilty as their brutality was unique. Demjanjuk was a POW and worse yet, a Soviet. The other Soviet POWs were not treated any better than the Jews were treated but the Ukrainians had a unique position in this war. It could be argued that a POW has no ability to refuse what he is ordered to do as refusal would most likely lead to that individual being executed.

[Saradoc1972]

Perhaps the most interesting was when the judge at the last Ernst Zundle trial makes the point that "Truth is not a defense". If the individual did what he is accused of doing and what he is accused of doing is a violation of the law, he is guilty.

Zundle's defense team made a serious tactical error and put the Holocaust on trial and that had no chance for a defensive success. He was accused of denying the Holocaust and that is what he did. Whether or not there actually was a Holocaust had nothing to do with the charge or the verdict.

Errrmm.... that Zündel case would take a lot of explanation.

Zündel was born 1939 in Germany, so it's nothing to do with being a camp-guard or anything down that line, was too young for even joining Hitlerjugend.

It's close enough to the topic, though, so here goes...

Zündel got a (by German standards comparatively lenghty) prison term of five years 2/2007 and was released 2/2010, apparently not getting the usual early 2/3 release but pre-trial detention in Germany counted against that term, after extradition from Canada for convictions on 14 counts of "Volksverhetzung" (hate speech), "Beleidigung" (libel), and "Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener" (now that's true German... "Insult against the memory of deceased" would be my ad hoc translation) on grounds of effectively denying the Holocaust on his webpages.

To say "the truth is not a defense" is not the right way to put it. The "objective truth" would obviously be a defense, but it was ruled (not for the first time) that what he put on his webpage was not covered by the German take on freedom of speech which is enshrined in the constitution but only protects opinion, as opposed to (false) facts. It is held that denying the holocaust is not an opinion but stating false facts as there is overwhelming proof by historians and witnesses as to the opposite. So the verdict did well have to do with there being the holocaust.

That legal reasoning is really difficult to follow in it's intricacy, it was upheld by Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court), not without minority votes of judges to the contrary which Jewish organizations promptly inveighed against (but were quite moderate it has to be said).

Would fill a wikipedia entry (there is one on Holocaust denial, but it's a bit mum as to the German legal reasoning) to adequately represent, along with the exact reasoning as to why that constitutes libel or slander against surviving jews and their progeny, insult and hate, so I'll leave it at that.

Zündel's legal defense team did not make a "tactical error". I am acutally smiling at that expression, given what actually happened...

I'd rather put it this way: he got himself a team of 5 raving lunatics.

Three guys that themselved had prior convictions for the same crimes, first was chucked out of court right away for being prohibited from practicing law for that, the other two could only submit their "findings" on the Holocaust in writing. Was quite a novelty procedural-wise.

Best attorney was one Sylvia Stolz. Got thrown out for reciting Hitler, threatening the lay judges with the death penalty (sic!) for "slander angainst the German Volk" and "aiding the enemy", prostrating the Nazi salute (all of that in a public court session), and signing her writs "Heil Hitler".

Got herself sentenced to 39 month in prison and was prohibitet from practising law. Good riddance, dear colleague...

I wish I had been there, that apparently was sheer cabaret (the earnest and sad notions don't escape me, but this was a singular thing).

[Travel2003]

Hopefully, his execution won't be botched.

He won't be executed. Germany does not have the death penalty.

At 89, what's the point... He probably won't live to reach the date anyway.

Didn't realize that Pennsylvania was in Germany these days.

It isn't.

[Travel2003]

Sick... Leave the old man alone unless there is conclusive proof of the allegations.

Why did they not chase the big money Nazis to Peru and Chile?

Really?

You think they spend time and effort if they are not sure?

They hunt down the guys in South America as well, and have caught a lot of them there.

So you are the one with the silly allegations.

Stop playing candy crush and do some research boy!

It is good this guy is caught and it is in the media.

Not because of the individual, but we should never forget what happened.

[Saradoc1972]

OK, I don't know how many are still following this thread, but I dug up German news reports on the case with a lot more details.

I promise to sum that up in brief when I find the time, apparently the German state's attorney's view on defence regarding "order is order" changed over the Demjanuk case, till then I can only throw lots of German at you.

20.8.2012: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/auschwitz-ehemaliger-kz-wachmann-womoeglich-bald-vor-gericht-a-851039.html

27.09.2012: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/ex-kz-wachmann-johann-breyer-droht-anklage-in-deutschland-a-858008.html

18.12.2012: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/johann-breyer-ss-dokument-belastet-ex-kz-wachmann-a-874941.html

01.06.2013: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/ehemaliger-kz-wachmann-breyer-rechtshilfeersuchen-in-vorbereitung-a-903071.html

19.06.2013: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/usa-fruehere-kz-wachmann-johann-breyer-verhaftet-moegliche-abschiebung-a-976060.html

22.06.2013: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/verbrechen-von-auschwitz-verfahren-gegen-greise-ss-maenner-eingestellt-a-976699.html

Chap's name is Johann Breyer, *30.05.1925, a former toolwright, and US proceedings from the early 90s ended in 2003 when a judge decided his citizenship could not be withdrawn on account of him only being 17 when whatever it was happened. Apparently, as I surmised, this is not a case of non bis in idem and no stop to new proceedings in the US, although he might not see the end of them.

In the meantime, like with the one case I wrote about here, over 30 new cases were started in Germany this year, and so far 11 have been closed on account of the accused not being expected to last the trial or being incompetent for health reasons.

As I opined earlier, mundane justice and procedural rules have ceased to work here.

[Saradoc1972]

It is good this guy is caught and it is in the media.

He's not been "caught", he's been indicted, and he has been "caught" or rather has been a suspect for some 20 years. From what I glean from the news reports I linked earlier evidence against him is at least potentially more serious and more founded, but it would take an expert to interpret it, so let's not do it out of court.

What I am balking at here all along is the notion that as soon as s.o. has been alleged, in the media or not, of being a war criminal everyone cries "Hooray, we got another one, he's got to be guilty and get what's coming to him so we can all feel better for persevering" when nobody without spending weeks and months, even years, looking at the facts and hearing experts and witnesses can determine whether that's actually the case.

What I can understand are notions this should be looked into with all due diligence, though.

Among other legal opinions I am hoping to convey, like having to act on orders or be a martyr, and obvious youth. I am presenting a lawyer's view on things, I hope that is appreciated, and even when presenting my own legal take on things I am being neutral, I am not his defense counsel when I obviously don't know what perspired back then myself.

Not because of the individual, but we should never forget what happened.

I think I can subscribe to that.

(I don't get the hang of this quoting or multi-quoting function here, all quotes done in good faith)

Edited June 22, 2014 by Saradoc1972

[1Ping1]

Never Forget

Both sides of the big pond gave a lot to put down those bastards. If guilty, there is no level of hell deep enough for those that were involved with their operation.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"
- George Orwell

[Travel2003]

Never Forget

Both sides of the big pond gave a lot to put down those bastards. If guilty, there is no level of hell deep enough for those that were involved with their operation.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"

- George Orwell

Agree.

This is the worst crime against humanity put in to system, in the history of the world.

An entire state apparatus just aiming for single goal, to exterminate other human beings.

One can forgive, but should never ever forget.

[Saradoc1972]

OK, here's the facts from those news snippets:

Breyer was born 5/1925 in Neuwalldorf, Slovakia (i.e. quite remote from most of the action) as the son of a member of the German minority there and an American mother, however that came to pass. His parents were farmers and and he had already begun working on that small farm (4 cows, 2 horses, 2 swine) when he was drafted 10.02.1941, i.e. at age 15 after 8 y of schooling max.

He was drafted directly into the SS as that organization was eager to get new recruits from German minorities outside Germany, apparently especially Czechs and Slovaks. I rest my case here, he got apparently lorried to a place in Poland he'd never heard of before, and was told: here's your gun and that's your bunk.

Now for the interesting things: he was a "Sturmmann", i.e. a lowly private right until the end of things, but he was member of the Totenkopfsturmbann (Death's Heads) in Auschwitz II (i.e. Birkenau, the extermination camp). That apparently was known to the US occupational forces (I'd personally call them liberation forces with a positive connotation) when he was still residing in Germany until 1952, at which point he made for the US under his real name with only US citizenship. German prosecutors are not expecting to be able to attribute individual murders to him.

When the case against him was opened in the US in 1992 he admitted to having been an SS guard outside Auschwitz 1 (i.e. not Birkenau) and claimed he had deserted in 1944. That now is rebutted by documents showing he successfully applied for a higher alimony for his parents, who had to run their farm without his help with hirelings, on 16.01.1945 to his superiours at Auschwitz.

I'm not sure what to make of this as on the date that application was assented to on 17.01.1945, the camp was already being hastily cleared by driving surviving inmates west in long treks through the winter.

The case was closed, as I wrote before, in the US in 2003 when a judge ruled he was not culpable enough for having his citizenship withdrawn on grounds of having been a minor most of the time. That new document might now prove he has been there longer than what he admitted to and hence be the reason for the new proceedings in the US with a view to his citizenship (which are apparently of an administrative kind rather than criminal). States, as a rule, do not extradite their own citizens.

Here is an interesting newsstory on an SS sergeant at Auschwitz 2 four years Breyer's senior who was acquitted by an allied tribunal in 1948, is now facing trial, and openly speaks about what perspired back then (in English).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580101/Former-Auschwitz-guard-Oskar-Groening-deemed-fit-stand-trial-mass-murder-admits-I-hear-cries-dead-dreams-waking-moment.html

Mind the Daily Mail claims that the earlier case of John Demjanuk, who had been sentenced to 5 years in prison on counts of aiding and abetting mass-murder by a Munich court, had "paved the way" for the new proceedings against Auschwitz guards [as supreme orders were not held to be a sufficent defense].

That is one of the usual missunderstandings in the press about the finer details, but I'll put it in a new post, this one is getting too long.

[Morch]

@Saradoc1972 - thank you for taking the time to post this.

[Saradoc1972]

OK folks. Here is one last lawyer's post on the subject (unless there's a discussion or something).

Let's get the legal points out of the way first. What you find in the press (with the notable exception of DER SPIEGEL, which is the leading German magazine) about that as usual "doesn't fit on a cow's hide", which is the literal translation of a German adage "paßt auf keine Kuhhaut", meaning it is totally off the mark and mutilated beyong recognition.

What drove German authorities to pull their fingers out of their a... and indicting some 50 elderly citizens from all over the world since 2013, our guy is one of the youngest, after getting back sovereignty to do so as early as 1953, was the case of the late John Demjanjuk who was alleged to have been a supervisor in the Sobibor Polish extermination camp.

That was after this native Ukrainian Trawniki had been extradited from the US to Israel in 1983 for being suspected to have been a major figure "Ivan the Terrible" there and was detained in prison for 8 years, 5 in death row, until on appeal he was unanimously acquitted by an Israeli court in spite of having been identified as a guard in Sobibor and sent back to the US in 1991, getting his US citizenship back in the process.

The Israelis themselves apparently didn't hold it to be that much of a crime that he wanted to save his own hide and went along with what he was being made to do in a minor role without any power to change what was going on.

German authorities then apparently decided they had to be "more Papal than the Pope" "better late than never" (German adages) and got him again extradited from the US in 2009 for an 18-months trial at Munich's Regional Criminal Court II (mind the word Munich here) that ended in 2011 after 93 medically supervised sessions and 2y of pretrial-detention with a prison sentence of 5y for aiding and abetting murder, even when no individual death could be attributed to him.

Having been in any concentration camp in any capacity was now enough for a conviction, and that was the real legal novelty.

The presiding judge, one Mr Alt, worded the grounds of the ruling "he should have taken the risk of fleeing that camp instead of even being a small cog-wheel in the machinery, even if risking his own execution". I don't think I could subscribe to that. On the other hand this court ruled Demjanjuk was not actually going to prison, as that would be "unconscionable" or "undue" after all this time and given his age. (I didn't know they could do that, at least at the time of passing the verdict).

Now (BEE'S KNEE!) this ruling of Munich's Regional Court II (Urt. v. 12.5.2011 – 1 Ks 12496/08) is flying in the face of several verdicts of Bundesgerichtshof ("BGH", German Supreme Court) from 1969-1975 to the exact opposite, holding lower courts to be in legal error for condeming definitely more senior officers at concentrations camps because "if that opinion were tenable, even medical personell strictly tending to other SS personell only and maybe being present on the ramp [where victims where selected for extermination] at times would be reprehensible for aiding and abetting murder".

I have been trying to sum up the state of legal discussion on what constitutes aiding and abetting murder and the various stages of statutory limitation in Germany regarding this, but after brushing through a couple of verdicts and scientific publications I have come to the conclusion that it would take some 5 screens full of legal gibberish, unintelligible even to most natural speakers of both Englisch and German.

For any more info please read Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials on English Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Auschwitz_trials

So: as some court in Munich has passed a verdict that by the structure of German law has no authority whatsoever some 30 miles away, and could not be judged upon by BGH because the defendent died beofre that, some state's attorneys now think they are legally obliged to press proceedings against anyone still above ground and wait if on the inevitable appeals BGH now decides something different (in some 5 years from now, suspects dying on their hands, and then this would go to constitutional court).

They are not, just take it from me. They could leave it to victims or their heirs to clear the legal points in administrative procedures without having to have suspects wheeled to Germany for that. Just wouldn't make for such a lovely, caring impact on press, and some of them would be down to chasing drunk drivers and petty thieves again.

The most that will probably happen to Breyer in juvenile court is a sentence of some 3 years, he would mandatorily have to go to a juvenile prison and they are not equipped for 90-y-olds. So he'll go free. Surprisingly, he is in pretrial-detention in the US, where normally most people go on bail, and in Germany those old geezers go on bail, when normally we have pretrial-detention here.

Anyway, what I found most enlightening was the story of one Oskar Gröning, I linked above: read English Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Gr%C3%B6ning, The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10695369/Auschwitz-guard-to-go-on-trial-in-Germany.html, and (if you have German) http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-40325395.html.

This chap was an officer with the SS, 4 years Breyer's senior, and has been quite candid about having been a guard in Auschwitz all along. He didn't like it one bit, it's the story of a pen-pusher finding himself ordered to go there to clear his desk for those no longer fit for active service. He describes how by his nationalist upbringing he didn't think anything was wrong about racist hate against Jews, still played with a Jewish neighbour girl as a child, and went to the SS for wanting to join an elite force (read my post on "volunteering") as he thought it was a dog-eat-dog world out there after Germany's defeat in WW I. Was able to leave Auschwitz after three applications to do so after 2 years to voluntarily join the western front's fighting and get wounded there instead.

He balked at writings denying the Holcaust in the late 60s and went public about it, was invited as a witness in German Auschwitz trials against real culprits, gave interviews to the BBC about it, saying he was morally, if not legally, guilty and all. Thanks to all this openness and admittance, he has now been indicted for, well, having been there as an accountant, and found fit to stand trial aged 93. Now that's a cracker.

I've made my mind up here. It's not about forgetting or showing compassion to those that had none. But all those very late trials are to my mind not having to do with justice for the victims or anyone else, they do not bring to light any new facts or serve to bring about historical enlightenment, they serve no purpose whatsoever.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Saradoc1972

[Ulysses G.]

Never Forget

Both sides of the big pond gave a lot to put down those bastards. If guilty, there is no level of hell deep enough for those that were involved with their operation.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"

- George Orwell

Agree.

This is the worst crime against humanity put in to system, in the history of the world.

An entire state apparatus just aiming for single goal, to exterminate other human beings.

One can forgive, but should never ever forget.

Thanks for using common sense. I concur.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Keep having trouble making up my mind on this.

Over the last few days asked a couple of Holocaust survivors what they thought about it. Both were younger than the accused, but both still pretty sharp. Got two different views.

The first was vaguely aware about the news, and that too, because his family brought it to attention. Was rather disinterested, said it wouldn't help anyone much and most of those they catch today are either senile or were small fish. Said there's still anger, but it is not personal anymore.

The other one, gave me a lecture of details to rival Saradoc1972's posts, complete with comments on German language oddities. The attitude and conclusion, however, were quite opposite - more along the lines of "hang him high" and "if I'd had the strength, I'd do it myself".

Both followed the Demjanjuk's case, at the time, and it effected their thinking in different ways.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[Saradoc1972]

Keep having trouble making up my mind on this.

Over the last few days asked a couple of Holocaust survivors what they thought about it. Both were younger than the accused, but both still pretty sharp. Got two different views.

The first was vaguely aware about the news, and that too, because his family brought it to attention. Was rather disinterested, said it wouldn't help anyone much and most of those they catch today are either senile or were small fish. Said there's still anger, but it is not personal anymore.

The other one, gave me a lecture of details to rival Saradoc1972's posts, complete with comments on German language oddities. The attitude and conclusion, however, were quite opposite - more along the lines of "hang him high" and "if I'd had the strength, I'd do it myself".

Both followed the Demjanjuk's case, at the time, and it effected their thinking in different ways.

These cases are open season for most opinion anyone might have, although I wouldn't know where "common sense" comes in here as this obviously a singular situation.

I'd say the first of those two survivors is probably the happier one for having more peace of mind.

That post would make a nice closing statement, but I'd be interested hearing some of the more hard-core folks' opinion here about the Oskar Groening case I quoted above. Will be moral from here on, not legal.

To repeat the key factors again, please read at least the wikipedia entry: Got into SS for having been thoroughly indoctrinated as a kid, found himself in Auschwitz never wanting to go there and not knowing what happened there,only job was sorting money taken from Jews, complained to superiors about things, tried to get out of there as fast as possible, spoke up when some fellow Germans in the late 60s showed him books denying the holocaust, presented his first hand knowledge in courts as a witness to possibly get some high up guys convicted, gave interviews to the BBC saying he felt morally guilty.

Will all that pass for redemption or should he be punished for having been at Auschwitz at all when he could not help it?

Can you punish s.o. for simply having been born in the wrong place at the wrong time and then not being suicidal enough to desert?

Sounds a bit like Antigone and catharsis, as in making some people feel better looking at the unsolvable moral dilemma and great misery of someone else.

As in: should have gotten yourself killed back then, otherwise we'll now kill you later (death penalty is ruled out in Germany, but it's what some people here would want for him)

Edited June 28, 2014 by Saradoc1972