Former Auschwitz guard, 94, convicted as accessory to murder

[Saradoc1972]

its a little bit late isnt it?

Hell has no schedule for those Nazi pigs.

I'd like to think, you are right, but this is not to do with worldly justice. The guy in charge of that court has totally different means of knowing the truth and enacting some sort of justice. Some people believe so.

Genocide should be treated as a crime with no statute of limitations.

It is.

They would not have been able to drag him to court after 70 years if it wasn't.

If you work for a business that exists solely for smoking/gassing/burning/torturing herds of people....hundreds or thousands daily...then you are part of the problem.

OK. And Gröning has admitted to having been part of the problem.

But if you want to use this in a legal argument, you also have to state if he wanted to be part of the problem. Vorsatz (mens rea) consists of knowing and wanting. The "knowing" side is not the crux.

The question is: could he have opted out? To some extend he could have. He did so, and on his third application got transferred to the fighting troops and got wounded.

And you will need to define "being part of the problem". Starts with being a Polish farmer's minor-aged daughter carrying eggs to the camp for the money her family needed to survive.

Helped feed the SS, kept them going, was part of the problem, wasn't she?

Yes, I know Gröning was a different sort of "part of the problem"; part of the tutoring I got to get my legal degrees was an exercise called "thinking into extremes". It helps with defining boundaries and spotting fallacies.

Quote: On a small scale, how about you join a group of friends who have decided to make murder their main mission if life.

You never pull the trigger..but drive the car, lock people inside their place of execution, and dump the dead corpses in a ditch.

It is called...murder...guilt by association....whether you pull the trigger or not.

Your example states a common design for a plan of action culminating in murder (which under German law is a bit more complex to define). The perpetrator in your example would be guilty of murder as such, not just being an accessory. Because he "wanted the deed as his own", he did not just want to lend a hand.

The British law legal term "guilt by association" is different than what you use it for. If mere association makes you culpable, the law has to state so, along with the boundaries of "association". Back in 1994 we discussed a change in British Criminal Law where being part of a crowd of youngsters joy-riding a stolen car made you guilty of reckless manslaughter when your friend driving said car run someone over. Although you were not driving the car and had never thought you would kill somebody, much less would have consented to that. The term for that in German law would be "mental abetting". Have a look.

Let's stick to "being an accessory" for acts that helped and furthered the actual murder with no intend to make the actual murders happen, if Gröning could have helped it.

And, yes, I suppose Gröning committed such acts.

[eliotness]

its a little bit late isnt it?

Hell has no schedule for those Nazi pigs.

I'd like to think, you are right, but this is not to do with worldly justice. The guy in charge of that court has totally different means of knowing the truth and enacting some sort of justice. Some people believe so.

Genocide should be treated as a crime with no statute of limitations.

It is.

They would not have been able to drag him to court after 70 years if it wasn't.

If you work for a business that exists solely for smoking/gassing/burning/torturing herds of people....hundreds or thousands daily...then you are part of the problem.

OK. And Gröning has admitted to having been part of the problem.

But if you want to use this in a legal argument, you also have to state if he wanted to be part of the problem. Vorsatz (mens rea) consists of knowing and wanting. The "knowing" side is not the crux.

The question is: could he have opted out? To some extend he could have. He did so, and on his third application got transferred to the fighting troops and got wounded.

And you will need to define "being part of the problem". Starts with being a Polish farmer's minor-aged daughter carrying eggs to the camp for the money her family needed to survive.

Helped feed the SS, kept them going, was part of the problem, wasn't she?

Yes, I know Gröning was a different sort of "part of the problem"; part of the tutoring I got to get my legal degrees was an exercise called "thinking into extremes". It helps with defining boundaries and spotting fallacies.

Quote: On a small scale, how about you join a group of friends who have decided to make murder their main mission if life.

You never pull the trigger..but drive the car, lock people inside their place of execution, and dump the dead corpses in a ditch.

It is called...murder...guilt by association....whether you pull the trigger or not.

Your example states a common design for a plan of action culminating in murder (which under German law is a bit more complex to define). The perpetrator in your example would be guilty of murder as such, not just being an accessory. Because he "wanted the deed as his own", he did not just want to lend a hand.

The British law legal term "guilt by association" is different than what you use it for. If mere association makes you culpable, the law has to state so, along with the boundaries of "association". Back in 1994 we discussed a change in British Criminal Law where being part of a crowd of youngsters joy-riding a stolen car made you guilty of reckless manslaughter when your friend driving said car run someone over. Although you were not driving the car and had never thought you would kill somebody, much less would have consented to that. The term for that in German law would be "mental abetting". Have a look.

Let's stick to "being an accessory" for acts that helped and furthered the actual murder with no intend to make the actual murders happen, if Gröning could have helped it.

And, yes, I suppose Gröning committed such acts.

It's very difficult to compare killing people in a car crash to mass genocide. For example in Germany would you consider the directors of the chemical company that produced Zyklon B as mass murders ?

[Saradoc1972]

It's very difficult to compare killing people in a car crash to mass genocide.

I never did. I was setting apart an accessory from someone guilty of association in contrast to a co-perpetrator.

Nothing to do with a hit-and-run accident and murder as such.

Difficult to compare? No, because you just don't. You use the of legal categories given to you, and then that thing is that, the other much different. And the sentencing obviously enough is much different.

For example in Germany would you consider the directors of the chemical company that produced Zyklon B as mass murders ?

"After World War II ended in 1945, Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher of Tesch & Stabenow were tried in a British military court and executed for knowingly providing Zyklon B to the SS for use on humans." (Wikipedia with further leads)

Well, is suppose they were mass murderers, i.e. co-perpetrators, not just accessories. I'd have to look into the legal arguing, but I am not going to argue with everything some court said back then for good valid reasons and facts, likely enough.

Those directors probably tried getting out on grounds of "I was replaceable, they'd have produced it anyway". To which the answer would be: you did not even try to get out, you could have done so, but you wanted to keep your cushy job away from the front and make a lot of money out of it.

Which gets us back to Gröning, who did not make money out of it, DID try to get out, just possibly not hard enough.

[Saradoc1972]

After the "night of the long knives" no one in Nazi Germany could have been unaware of what the SS was about. Sure many thousands of Germans and non-Germans joined the Waffen SS to fight against the threat (as they saw it) of communism. Some of those men fought with extreme valour, brutal, misguided, but valour nevertheless.

I suppose with what translates to "die Nacht der langen Messer" you are referring to "Reichskristallnacht", meaning the big pogrome where the windows of Jewish shop- and home-owners were shattered and the fire-brigade allowed fires in those buildings to go on unless they were threatening the buildings of the "good" German populace?

That is still different from wantonly murdering people on a large scale, along with their wives and children. At that point in time they were mostly going about getting rid of the Jewish population by making them emigrate and confiscate their belongings, to France, to the US, to Madagascar, to Palestine. Making them "want" to leave, impoverished but alive. There were board-games in Germany called "Jews out!", a bit like "Ludo", where you had to chase out "Jew-figurines" outside of a city wall onto a field labelled "Off to Palestine!". That's what you got to play with as a child back then. No joke.

The people in charge did everything they could to hide Auschwitz and the other camps form the populace in 1942 onwards. Why do you think Auschwitz was in Poland? No doubt here - word got out at some point. But did you believe what you heard then? Could have been enemy-propaganda.

As I wrote somewhere above, before his transfer to Auschwitz the SS-superiors reminded everyone of their oath to keep their mouths shut about the place they were being send to.

This case is very different, he "hid" in the safety of a death camp, watching and helping hundreds of thousands to die.

Yes, possibly he did just that.

In the verdict (it's not out in writing as of yet, I promise to put up a link to it when it is) the presiding judge told Gröning his attempts to get away from Auschwitz had been lacking in determination.

Gröning did claim, he had submitted more than the 3 proven applications to get transferred somewhere else, but those had been thrown into the waste-bin. This was doubted by expert witnesses (i.e. historians).

In the trial, he described himself as a "desk-person", he later joined the fighting troops, but he never wanted to be there. For reasons everyone can at least appreciate. According to the court, his files showed he had been labelled "abkömmlich", i.e. they could have done without him if he had applied to get off.

Here's what I think what happened:

Gröning was a pen-pusher, but he had been indoctrinated since childhood about how the Jews purportedly had brought ruin over Germany. So he wanted to join an elite force to get them out and wage a war for Germany's greater good, the SS. He found the job they gave him to his liking and did his very best, but as the war went on, they replaced all the cushy jobs at home with guys that were not longer able-bodied.

Gröning then got assigned to Auschwitz, he did not know what that place was. Went there, saw one horror after the other, complained to a superior who told him to keep his mouth shut, decided he did not want to have anything to do with it.

Had to start building up the resolve to actually get away from there. Took him some time. Just "quitting" was no option; you can't demand someone to just lay down his life for moral reasons. The world would be a better place if everyone was a saint.

Went to his office, asked about getting sent somewhere else. Got told he'd get transferred to Southern Russia to fight there, and the quota of dead SS-soldiers there was enormous.

The latter was mainly because the actual military training of the SS was found more than wanting. They were only supposedly "elite forces", by a narrative having to do with superior German blood that would see them victorious.

They died by the droves on suicidal missions, 35% casualties.

Decided once again he was a desk-person, withdrew his application, did not want to go there and take his chances. Applied for less dangerous jobs somewhere else twice, at the close of the war he saw the chance to get a survivable fighting job in France. Got there, got wounded, told everyone he'd done his best to get out of Auschwitz as soon as possible. As he found himself in the dock now, he couldn't very well own up and say he could have got out earlier but would likely have gotten himself killed by doing so. Was economical with the truth here, to some degree.

He got himself in the situation he was put on trial for because he had joined the SS in the first place for what is now universally seen as misguided reasons when he was 18.

A mistake, but he cannot be held personally responsible to that degree for everything that happened then and what he found himself in then.

Innocent? No, if the court's findings are anything to go by he decided to remain passive, doing his job in Auschwitz for two years until the calculation of personal risk seemed good enough.

Guilty? If yes, then much much less than the big wigs, the actual killers and the other hardcore Nazi-accessories who could not have cared less. Spoke up after the war and was a crown-witness in several trials.

[hawker9000]

Hell has no schedule for those Nazi pigs.

I'd like to think, you are right, but this is not to do with worldly justice. The guy in charge of that court has totally different means of knowing the truth and enacting some sort of justice. Some people believe so.

Genocide should be treated as a crime with no statute of limitations.

It is.

They would not have been able to drag him to court after 70 years if it wasn't.

If you work for a business that exists solely for smoking/gassing/burning/torturing herds of people....hundreds or thousands daily...then you are part of the problem.

OK. And Gröning has admitted to having been part of the problem.

But if you want to use this in a legal argument, you also have to state if he wanted to be part of the problem. Vorsatz (mens rea) consists of knowing and wanting. The "knowing" side is not the crux.

The question is: could he have opted out? To some extend he could have. He did so, and on his third application got transferred to the fighting troops and got wounded.

And you will need to define "being part of the problem". Starts with being a Polish farmer's minor-aged daughter carrying eggs to the camp for the money her family needed to survive.

Helped feed the SS, kept them going, was part of the problem, wasn't she?

Yes, I know Gröning was a different sort of "part of the problem"; part of the tutoring I got to get my legal degrees was an exercise called "thinking into extremes". It helps with defining boundaries and spotting fallacies.

Quote: On a small scale, how about you join a group of friends who have decided to make murder their main mission if life.

You never pull the trigger..but drive the car, lock people inside their place of execution, and dump the dead corpses in a ditch.

It is called...murder...guilt by association....whether you pull the trigger or not.

Your example states a common design for a plan of action culminating in murder (which under German law is a bit more complex to define). The perpetrator in your example would be guilty of murder as such, not just being an accessory. Because he "wanted the deed as his own", he did not just want to lend a hand.

The British law legal term "guilt by association" is different than what you use it for. If mere association makes you culpable, the law has to state so, along with the boundaries of "association". Back in 1994 we discussed a change in British Criminal Law where being part of a crowd of youngsters joy-riding a stolen car made you guilty of reckless manslaughter when your friend driving said car run someone over. Although you were not driving the car and had never thought you would kill somebody, much less would have consented to that. The term for that in German law would be "mental abetting". Have a look.

Let's stick to "being an accessory" for acts that helped and furthered the actual murder with no intend to make the actual murders happen, if Gröning could have helped it.

And, yes, I suppose Gröning committed such acts.

How can you say that someone who obviously knows, on an ongoing basis, what the direct result of the actions being taken by other members of his "gang" or group of actors will be (mass murder), and who knows that his own actions are supporting and aiding this group against its victims, has no "intent"?

See, this is the problem I have with lawyers and the judiciary. The rest of us have to surrender our common sense to their legal jargon, technical antics, and never-ending manipulation of the truth and the law. No wonder so many of them end up in politics. This idea that "justice is just too complicated for you 'common men' understand, you must let us, the lawyer elite, define & administer it for you", gets harder to swallow all the time ... Lawyers should listen more and disquisition less.

[wooloomooloo]

It would appear that even after being informed more than once (see previous contributions) that this person wasn't just a plain old 'bookkeeper, you persist in repeating the same nonsense. Classic tactics from the Holocaust Denial fraternity who are forever wanting to kick this history into the long grass.

The long grass is already here. The absolute majority of those involved are dead and those that are left are too frail to face justice.

Holocaust Denial fraternity is more than a bit dramatic.

[SheungWan]

It would appear that even after being informed more than once (see previous contributions) that this person wasn't just a plain old 'bookkeeper, you persist in repeating the same nonsense. Classic tactics from the Holocaust Denial fraternity who are forever wanting to kick this history into the long grass.

The long grass is already here. The absolute majority of those involved are dead and those that are left are too frail to face justice.

Holocaust Denial fraternity is more than a bit dramatic.

Here we go again: 'too frail to face justice'. Not in this case he wasn't. Maybe you should have advised his lawyer to play that card.

[uptheos]

It would appear that even after being informed more than once (see previous contributions) that this person wasn't just a plain old 'bookkeeper, you persist in repeating the same nonsense. Classic tactics from the Holocaust Denial fraternity who are forever wanting to kick this history into the long grass.

The long grass is already here. The absolute majority of those involved are dead and those that are left are too frail to face justice.

Holocaust Denial fraternity is more than a bit dramatic.

There were 1,000's in the camps, who weren't too frail to be gassed, beaten or tortured to death though!

[wooloomooloo]

It would appear that even after being informed more than once (see previous contributions) that this person wasn't just a plain old 'bookkeeper, you persist in repeating the same nonsense. Classic tactics from the Holocaust Denial fraternity who are forever wanting to kick this history into the long grass.

The long grass is already here. The absolute majority of those involved are dead and those that are left are too frail to face justice.

Holocaust Denial fraternity is more than a bit dramatic.

Here we go again: 'too frail to face justice'. Not in this case he wasn't. Maybe you should have advised his lawyer to play that card.

I'm not going to argue with you other than you're in a minority of almost one on this particular argument. I'm not a holocaust denier either, before you start.

Have a good rest tonight.

[wooloomooloo]

It would appear that even after being informed more than once (see previous contributions) that this person wasn't just a plain old 'bookkeeper, you persist in repeating the same nonsense. Classic tactics from the Holocaust Denial fraternity who are forever wanting to kick this history into the long grass.

The long grass is already here. The absolute majority of those involved are dead and those that are left are too frail to face justice.

Holocaust Denial fraternity is more than a bit dramatic.

There were 1,000's in the camps, who weren't too frail to be gassed, beaten or tortured to death though!

The law has deemed them too frail, my friend, not me. Pick another fight, as there's not one here.

[hawker9000]

It would appear that even after being informed more than once (see previous contributions) that this person wasn't just a plain old 'bookkeeper, you persist in repeating the same nonsense. Classic tactics from the Holocaust Denial fraternity who are forever wanting to kick this history into the long grass.

The long grass is already here. The absolute majority of those involved are dead and those that are left are too frail to face justice.

Holocaust Denial fraternity is more than a bit dramatic.

There were 1,000's in the camps, who weren't too frail to be gassed, beaten or tortured to death though!

The law has deemed them too frail, my friend, not me. Pick another fight, as there's not one here.

See? "The law has deemed them too frail." Funny how the definition of "the law" has changed from a what to a who. Maybe "the law", this inbred bureaucracy of self-styled intellectual elites, does NOT in fact speak for mankind ... And maybe not everyone who SAYS he's not a Holocaust Denier, isn't, or maybe hasn't just persuaded himself that he isn't.

Too frail to face justice? For playing a role in so brutally ending the lives of millions? Please. I really don't care if they're in a coma; if they're guilty of atrocity, pull the tubes & turn off the ventilator, videotape the process, and send the videos to ISIS... Let everyone who contemplates such crimes see & know that it will follow them all the way to the grave and beyond.

Edited July 22, 2015 by hawker9000

[wooloomooloo]

See? "The law has deemed them too frail." Funny how the definition of "the law" has changed from a what to a who. Maybe "the law", this inbred bureaucracy of self-styled intellectual elites, does NOT in fact speak for mankind ... And maybe not everyone who SAYS he's not a Holocaust Denier, isn't, or maybe hasn't just persuaded himself that he isn't.

Too frail to face justice? For playing a role in so brutally ending the lives of millions? Please. I really don't care if they're in a coma; if they're guilty of atrocity, pull the tubes & turn off the ventilator, videotape the process, and send the videos to ISIS... Let everyone who contemplates such crimes see & know that it will follow them all the way to the grave and beyond.

Don't let your outrage cloud your judgement. A bookkeeper who's old and only guilty by association. No witnesses or evidence to state that he shot, gassed or beat people.

What if the defendant went AWOL during that time. If caught, are you aware of the punishment that would befall him?

For all we know he could have been haunted for decades by what he saw and knows.

Think carefully about a historical event that you weren't even born into before you let rip.

[Saradoc1972]

How can you say that someone who obviously knows, on an ongoing basis, what the direct result of the actions being taken by other members of his "gang" or group of actors will be (mass murder), and who knows that his own actions are supporting and aiding this group against its victims, has no "intent"?

I said he had no intent to be a co-perpetrator, he quite possibly had enough intent to be an accessory. As was ruled by the court.

No, I am not having you on.

There is little point in trying to explain to a wider audience the nitty-gritty of German criminal law. It differs form English/US-laws in what constitutes murder or manslaughter, there is only little "malice aforethought" or justified passion coming in.

There is an excellent article on the news "Oskar Gröning und die Beihilfe" (Gröning and abetting) I would direct you to, but it's all German and on a level that would preclude most non-native speakers. And a hard read on top.

Chap's name is Thomas Fischer, he is the presiding judge of the second senate of the German Supreme Court for criminal cases, to which both Gröning and some co-plaintiff have a appealed.

He won't have to deal with the Gröning case, that will be the third senate. He is picking apart some established German jurisprudence on that very matter, i.e. who is a perpetrator and who is just aiding him.

But there is no way I'll be translating that, would take me a week.

I'll put it that way: There were actual murderers who actually killed persons with their own hands. And big-wigs ordering them to do just that from far away. Those were actual perpetrators because they wanted the deed to happen, wanted it as their own, and were in charge of the actual goings-on. Down to the guy who pulled the trigger or threw the Zyklon-B can in.

Then there were people supporting that by their actions, like Gröning. He never killed or so much as hit anyone across the face, he just guarded the baggage when on the ramp (he claims three times, court did not believe him), and later went through the belongings. You now have to define what is support on a high enough or close enough level, including the above Polish farmer's daughter with her eggs.

He knew people were unlawfully killed, so did he want to help with that? You need both to establish mens rea. The court held that, yes, guarding the belonging on the ramp constituted abetting the later murders, as that was designed to keep the new inmates from realizing they were going to their imminent death. If they had realized that, there would have been a mass panic disturbing the smooth running of the Auschwitz machine. Hence, his actions furthered the whole killing on a direct level, you cannot imagine the actual murder in the form it took place without that. Arguably; this reasoning is not bullet-proof. And, having arguably realized that, Gröning wanted the following murders to happen with the aid he gave.

Judged by Gröning's actions, he was proffering a lesser degree of "mens rea". First degree ("Absicht") would be "YES! I want this to happen". Second degree would be "Wissentlichkeit", meaning he did not actually want the murder to happen, but knew his actions would lead to just that. Below that there is recklessness like "naw, might happen, just possibly,even so I'll go through anyway"

Gröning would be the above second degree. Was he in charge of the crime he was abetting? No. Did not pull the trigger, didn't give the order, could not have stopped it, he did not profit from it.

Hence, he was an accessory to murder, but less guilty than a lot of people going along thinking "we are the SS, this is what we do, and we like it."

See, this is the problem I have with lawyers and the judiciary. The rest of us have to surrender our common sense to their legal jargon, technical antics, and never-ending manipulation of the truth and the law. No wonder so many of them end up in politics. This idea that "justice is just too complicated for you 'common men' understand, you must let us, the lawyer elite, define & administer it for you", gets harder to swallow all the time ... Lawyers should listen more and disquisition less.

Tell me a better system. Before the Magna Carta and habeas corpus, some king or a vassal of his would just rule who got hanged and who went scot-free.

The point in laws is to make things transparent, a court has to give a reasoning and would be found out if it's phony. To better facilitate finding any phoniness there are rules along which lines that reasoning has to run.

And with criminal law everyone should be able to find out for himself whether such or such an act will be punishable. As in "sine lega scripta".

The Nazis tried to get a criminal provision into the law to the amount of "Wer gegen das gesunde Volksempfinden verstößt, wird bestraft" (i.e. anyone violating the proper common sense of the Volk shall be punished).

Common sense was to come back in, just that of the Nazi blood-judges. They did not want to be held back by laws and complicated systems, and a proper defense.

Without that (big) set of rules, you'd just get two people shouting at each other "He's guilty as hell" and "no, he's not. By my gut-feeling."

Now still might have an argument "That's first degree murder" against "No, second degree", which is at least least closer to the point.

If you should follow up on this post, could you clip at least some of the quotations on top, they're piling up.

[SheungWan]

How can you say that someone who obviously knows, on an ongoing basis, what the direct result of the actions being taken by other members of his "gang" or group of actors will be (mass murder), and who knows that his own actions are supporting and aiding this group against its victims, has no "intent"?

I said he had no intent to be a co-perpetrator, he quite possibly had enough intent to be an accessory. As was ruled by the court.

No, I am not having you on.

There is little point in trying to explain to a wider audience the nitty-gritty of German criminal law. It differs form English/US-laws in what constitutes murder or manslaughter, there is only little "malice aforethought" or justified passion coming in.

There is an excellent article on the news "Oskar Gröning und die Beihilfe" (Gröning and abetting) I would direct you to, but it's all German and on a level that would preclude most non-native speakers. And a hard read on top.

Chap's name is Thomas Fischer, he is the presiding judge of the second senate of the German Supreme Court for criminal cases, to which both Gröning and some co-plaintiff have a appealed.

He won't have to deal with the Gröning case, that will be the third senate. He is picking apart some established German jurisprudence on that very matter, i.e. who is a perpetrator and who is just aiding him.

But there is no way I'll be translating that, would take me a week.

I'll put it that way: There were actual murderers who actually killed persons with their own hands. And big-wigs ordering them to do just that from far away. Those were actual perpetrators because they wanted the deed to happen, wanted it as their own, and were in charge of the actual goings-on. Down to the guy who pulled the trigger or threw the Zyklon-B can in.

Then there were people supporting that by their actions, like Gröning. He never killed or so much as hit anyone across the face, he just guarded the baggage when on the ramp (he claims three times, court did not believe him), and later went through the belongings. You now have to define what is support on a high enough or close enough level, including the above Polish farmer's daughter with her eggs.

He knew people were unlawfully killed, so did he want to help with that? You need both to establish mens rea. The court held that, yes, guarding the belonging on the ramp constituted abetting the later murders, as that was designed to keep the new inmates from realizing they were going to their imminent death. If they had realized that, there would have been a mass panic disturbing the smooth running of the Auschwitz machine. Hence, his actions furthered the whole killing on a direct level, you cannot imagine the actual murder in the form it took place without that. Arguably; this reasoning is not bullet-proof. And, having arguably realized that, Gröning wanted the following murders to happen with the aid he gave.

Judged by Gröning's actions, he was proffering a lesser degree of "mens rea". First degree ("Absicht") would be "YES! I want this to happen". Second degree would be "Wissentlichkeit", meaning he did not actually want the murder to happen, but knew his actions would lead to just that. Below that there is recklessness like "naw, might happen, just possibly,even so I'll go through anyway"

Gröning would be the above second degree. Was he in charge of the crime he was abetting? No. Did not pull the trigger, didn't give the order, could not have stopped it, he did not profit from it.

Hence, he was an accessory to murder, but less guilty than a lot of people going along thinking "we are the SS, this is what we do, and we like it."

See, this is the problem I have with lawyers and the judiciary. The rest of us have to surrender our common sense to their legal jargon, technical antics, and never-ending manipulation of the truth and the law. No wonder so many of them end up in politics. This idea that "justice is just too complicated for you 'common men' understand, you must let us, the lawyer elite, define & administer it for you", gets harder to swallow all the time ... Lawyers should listen more and disquisition less.

Tell me a better system. Before the Magna Carta and habeas corpus, some king or a vassal of his would just rule who got hanged and who went scot-free.

The point in laws is to make things transparent, a court has to give a reasoning and would be found out if it's phony. To better facilitate finding any phoniness there are rules along which lines that reasoning has to run.

And with criminal law everyone should be able to find out for himself whether such or such an act will be punishable. As in "sine lega scripta".

The Nazis tried to get a criminal provision into the law to the amount of "Wer gegen das gesunde Volksempfinden verstößt, wird bestraft" (i.e. anyone violating the proper common sense of the Volk shall be punished).

Common sense was to come back in, just that of the Nazi blood-judges. They did not want to be held back by laws and complicated systems, and a proper defense.

Without that (big) set of rules, you'd just get two people shouting at each other "He's guilty as hell" and "no, he's not. By my gut-feeling."

Now still might have an argument "That's first degree murder" against "No, second degree", which is at least least closer to the point.

If you should follow up on this post, could you clip at least some of the quotations on top, they're piling up.

Too much tippity-toe dancing from you..... 'he quite possibly had enough intent to be an accessory'. As was ruled by the court. Courts don't rule that someone quite possibly. What a load of wishy-washy nonsense you are expousing.

Edited July 22, 2015 by SheungWan

[SheungWan]

See? "The law has deemed them too frail." Funny how the definition of "the law" has changed from a what to a who. Maybe "the law", this inbred bureaucracy of self-styled intellectual elites, does NOT in fact speak for mankind ... And maybe not everyone who SAYS he's not a Holocaust Denier, isn't, or maybe hasn't just persuaded himself that he isn't.

Too frail to face justice? For playing a role in so brutally ending the lives of millions? Please. I really don't care if they're in a coma; if they're guilty of atrocity, pull the tubes & turn off the ventilator, videotape the process, and send the videos to ISIS... Let everyone who contemplates such crimes see & know that it will follow them all the way to the grave and beyond.

Don't let your outrage cloud your judgement. A bookkeeper who's old and only guilty by association. No witnesses or evidence to state that he shot, gassed or beat people.

What if the defendant went AWOL during that time. If caught, are you aware of the punishment that would befall him?

For all we know he could have been haunted for decades by what he saw and knows.

Think carefully about a historical event that you weren't even born into before you let rip.

You're off again with the he's old and only guilty by association. And then a load of nonsense what ifs , AWOLS, and mythical hauntings. For someone who claims not to be a holocaust denier you are not making a very good job of it. I will say it again for the third or is it fourth time? He was a volunteer member of the SS and not some poor doozy who got lost in the Polish forest. And as for our legal eagle friend wittering away elsewhere on this thread, our convicted Old SS man wasn't just guarding guarding some goods at arrival (and anybody who has read what happened there knows it wasn't a picnic, this guy was responsible as a bookkeeper for keeping meticulous records of belongings which were forcibly taken from the arrivals). If he was there at that point, he would know that selections were made there and then of people going directly for execution. He knew what was happening and was a part of the machine. In the middle of it. So cut out the continuous excuses and persistent evasions. Both of you.

Edited July 22, 2015 by SheungWan

[eliotness]

After the "night of the long knives" no one in Nazi Germany could have been unaware of what the SS was about. Sure many thousands of Germans and non-Germans joined the Waffen SS to fight against the threat (as they saw it) of communism. Some of those men fought with extreme valour, brutal, misguided, but valour nevertheless.

I suppose with what translates to "die Nacht der langen Messer" you are referring to "Reichskristallnacht", meaning the big pogrome where the windows of Jewish shop- and home-owners were shattered and the fire-brigade allowed fires in those buildings to go on unless they were threatening the buildings of the "good" German populace?

That is still different from wantonly murdering people on a large scale, along with their wives and children. At that point in time they were mostly going about getting rid of the Jewish population by making them emigrate and confiscate their belongings, to France, to the US, to Madagascar, to Palestine. Making them "want" to leave, impoverished but alive. There were board-games in Germany called "Jews out!", a bit like "Ludo", where you had to chase out "Jew-figurines" outside of a city wall onto a field labelled "Off to Palestine!". That's what you got to play with as a child back then. No joke.

The people in charge did everything they could to hide Auschwitz and the other camps form the populace in 1942 onwards. Why do you think Auschwitz was in Poland? No doubt here - word got out at some point. But did you believe what you heard then? Could have been enemy-propaganda.

As I wrote somewhere above, before his transfer to Auschwitz the SS-superiors reminded everyone of their oath to keep their mouths shut about the place they were being send to.

This case is very different, he "hid" in the safety of a death camp, watching and helping hundreds of thousands to die.

Yes, possibly he did just that.

In the verdict (it's not out in writing as of yet, I promise to put up a link to it when it is) the presiding judge told Gröning his attempts to get away from Auschwitz had been lacking in determination.

Gröning did claim, he had submitted more than the 3 proven applications to get transferred somewhere else, but those had been thrown into the waste-bin. This was doubted by expert witnesses (i.e. historians).

In the trial, he described himself as a "desk-person", he later joined the fighting troops, but he never wanted to be there. For reasons everyone can at least appreciate. According to the court, his files showed he had been labelled "abkömmlich", i.e. they could have done without him if he had applied to get off.

Here's what I think what happened:

Gröning was a pen-pusher, but he had been indoctrinated since childhood about how the Jews purportedly had brought ruin over Germany. So he wanted to join an elite force to get them out and wage a war for Germany's greater good, the SS. He found the job they gave him to his liking and did his very best, but as the war went on, they replaced all the cushy jobs at home with guys that were not longer able-bodied.

Gröning then got assigned to Auschwitz, he did not know what that place was. Went there, saw one horror after the other, complained to a superior who told him to keep his mouth shut, decided he did not want to have anything to do with it.

Had to start building up the resolve to actually get away from there. Took him some time. Just "quitting" was no option; you can't demand someone to just lay down his life for moral reasons. The world would be a better place if everyone was a saint.

Went to his office, asked about getting sent somewhere else. Got told he'd get transferred to Southern Russia to fight there, and the quota of dead SS-soldiers there was enormous.

The latter was mainly because the actual military training of the SS was found more than wanting. They were only supposedly "elite forces", by a narrative having to do with superior German blood that would see them victorious.

They died by the droves on suicidal missions, 35% casualties.

Decided once again he was a desk-person, withdrew his application, did not want to go there and take his chances. Applied for less dangerous jobs somewhere else twice, at the close of the war he saw the chance to get a survivable fighting job in France. Got there, got wounded, told everyone he'd done his best to get out of Auschwitz as soon as possible. As he found himself in the dock now, he couldn't very well own up and say he could have got out earlier but would likely have gotten himself killed by doing so. Was economical with the truth here, to some degree.

He got himself in the situation he was put on trial for because he had joined the SS in the first place for what is now universally seen as misguided reasons when he was 18.

A mistake, but he cannot be held personally responsible to that degree for everything that happened then and what he found himself in then.

Innocent? No, if the court's findings are anything to go by he decided to remain passive, doing his job in Auschwitz for two years until the calculation of personal risk seemed good enough.

Guilty? If yes, then much much less than the big wigs, the actual killers and the other hardcore Nazi-accessories who could not have cared less. Spoke up after the war and was a crown-witness in several trials.

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

[Saradoc1972]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.

In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

[eliotness]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.

In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

[BKKBobby]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.

In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct. Edited July 23, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Saradoc1972]

How can you say that someone who obviously knows, on an ongoing basis, what the direct result of the actions being taken by other members of his "gang" or group of actors will be (mass murder), and who knows that his own actions are supporting and aiding this group against its victims, has no "intent"?

I said he had no intent to be a co-perpetrator, he quite possibly had enough intent to be an accessory. As was ruled by the court.

[sNIP]

Then there were people supporting that by their actions, like Gröning. He never killed or so much as hit anyone across the face, he just guarded the baggage when on the ramp (he claims three times, court did not believe him), and later went through the belongings. You now have to define what is support on a high enough or close enough level, including the above Polish farmer's daughter with her eggs.

He knew people were unlawfully killed, so did he want to help with that? You need both to establish mens rea. The court held that, yes, guarding the belonging on the ramp constituted abetting the later murders, as that was designed to keep the new inmates from realizing they were going to their imminent death. If they had realized that, there would have been a mass panic disturbing the smooth running of the Auschwitz machine. Hence, his actions furthered the whole killing on a direct level, you cannot imagine the actual murder in the form it took place without that. Arguably; this reasoning is not bullet-proof. And, having arguably realized that, Gröning wanted the following murders to happen with the aid he gave.

Too much tippity-toe dancing from you..... 'he quite possibly had enough intent to be an accessory'. As was ruled by the court. Courts don't rule that someone quite possibly. What a load of wishy-washy nonsense you are expousing.

Thank you for adding "tippety-toe dancing" and "limp-wristed" to my vocabulary.

Do you actually read a post before you go and pick a quarrel?

I was going on about whether or not what Gröning actually did constituted aiding the murders in question.

As in: close enough, substantial enough - as opposed to the fictional Polish farmer's daughter. I answered that to the affirmative, which is in line with your enraged shouting how he was not just a book-keeper. I just left it open to discussion. It's so much better than just saying "He was not just a book-keeper!!!!" if you furnish that view with some reasoning why.

If you go along here, hell yeah, Gröning had 2nd degree mens rea to aid and abet murder, possible valid excuses for that to be taken into account at a later stage. If not, his intent to guard the suitcases is as relevant as any intent he might have had to father as many ugly children as he could with above fictional Polish farmer's daughter.

Hence the "quite possibly"

Courts actually do rule things to have happened "quite possibly", they just call it "beyond reasonable doubt" or "to the court's satisfaction". Sounds so much better to the unwashed masses.

And if I want to parrot a court, right or not, I can do that in one sentence.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Scott

[Saradoc1972]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.

In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct.

Yes, OK. I even looked the whole thing up, so this thread has been quite educational so far.

But what are you hinting at, where is the connection to Gröning? I mean, I would love to refer to Germany's history in the 1930ies as "the big civil war when Hitler got deposed of" and nothing of Auschwitz and WW II,

but after Hitler came to power (Machtergreifung) in 1933, that would have been hard to imagine. And certainly what Gröning got taught at school (was about 13 then) sounded a lot different.

After all, the North Koreans of today would have a lot more personal reason to depose of everyone's favourite mad dictator, they just fail to do the right thing.... joking.

[eliotness]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.
In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct.

Yes, OK. I even looked the whole thing up, so this thread has been quite educational so far.

But what are you hinting at, where is the connection to Gröning? I mean, I would love to refer to Germany's history in the 1930ies as "the big civil war when Hitler got deposed of" and nothing of Auschwitz and WW II,
but after Hitler came to power (Machtergreifung) in 1933, that would have been hard to imagine. And certainly what Gröning got taught at school (was about 13 then) sounded a lot different.

After all, the North Koreans of today would have a lot more personal reason to depose of everyone's favourite mad dictator, they just fail to do the right thing.... joking.

Going back to my original comment, Groning and the whole of Germany must have been quite aware after such events what the SS was all about. It's not as though they were secret about it. It's just that many people chose to ignore what was happening. Although I do take your point that from 1933 onwards there was massive brainwashing in schools. I presume also he must have been a member of the Hitler Youth at school, so natural progression HJ to SS.

[BKKBobby]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.

In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct.

Yes, OK. I even looked the whole thing up, so this thread has been quite educational so far.

But what are you hinting at, where is the connection to Gröning? I mean, I would love to refer to Germany's history in the 1930ies as "the big civil war when Hitler got deposed of" and nothing of Auschwitz and WW II,

but after Hitler came to power (Machtergreifung) in 1933, that would have been hard to imagine. And certainly what Gröning got taught at school (was about 13 then) sounded a lot different.

After all, the North Koreans of today would have a lot more personal reason to depose of everyone's favourite mad dictator, they just fail to do the right thing.... joking.

I jumped in when I saw your dialogue. Just stating facts.

Anyway, the options were limited. It started when they were kids. Hitler Jugend had millions of members but it wasnt enough for Hitler. He wanted to brainwash everyone with racism and make them obey. The kids had to write the name of their father and his employer if they wanted to refuse membership. That was blackmail to get them to make the "right" choice. Then it simply became mandatory.

I dont think many dared to disobey orders, and most believed in the Nazi ideology anyway.

Edited July 24, 2015 by BKKBobby

[SheungWan]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.

In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct.

Yes, OK. I even looked the whole thing up, so this thread has been quite educational so far.

But what are you hinting at, where is the connection to Gröning? I mean, I would love to refer to Germany's history in the 1930ies as "the big civil war when Hitler got deposed of" and nothing of Auschwitz and WW II,

but after Hitler came to power (Machtergreifung) in 1933, that would have been hard to imagine. And certainly what Gröning got taught at school (was about 13 then) sounded a lot different.

After all, the North Koreans of today would have a lot more personal reason to depose of everyone's favourite mad dictator, they just fail to do the right thing.... joking.

I jumped in when I saw your dialogue. Just stating facts.

Anyway, the options were limited. It started when they were kids. Hitler Jugend had millions of members but it wasnt enough for Hitler. He wanted to brainwash everyone with racism and make them obey. The kids had to write the name of their father and his employer if they wanted to refuse membership. That was blackmail to get them to make the "right" choice. Then it simply became mandatory.

I dont think many dared to disobey orders, and most believed in the Nazi ideology anyway.

You don't think much at all as is obvious from your comments. 'Just stating facts'.....and then comes the opinion dressed up as facts. Try studying the history of the SS a little rather than making asinine remarks about brainwashing and pushing insidious idea that the bookkeeper either didn't know what he was doing and/or was not responsible for what he was doing. The SS was a voluntary elite corp. Your 'facts' might pass for facts in one or two bars in LOS but elsewhere no go.

[Pakboong]

IMO the greatest line/ruling to come out of a German Judge was in the case of the 2nd Zundle trial for Denying the Holocaust. The ruling was my all time favorite "the truth is not a defense" you got to love that guy for that one. Obviously, the only relevant truth is whether the charged individual did or did not deny the Holocaust. Technically if you believe the number is 5,999,000 and not 6 million, you are a Holocaust denier. The great news is, like smoking pot, it is not illegal everywhere.

[BKKBobby]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.
In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct.

Yes, OK. I even looked the whole thing up, so this thread has been quite educational so far.

But what are you hinting at, where is the connection to Gröning? I mean, I would love to refer to Germany's history in the 1930ies as "the big civil war when Hitler got deposed of" and nothing of Auschwitz and WW II,
but after Hitler came to power (Machtergreifung) in 1933, that would have been hard to imagine. And certainly what Gröning got taught at school (was about 13 then) sounded a lot different.

After all, the North Koreans of today would have a lot more personal reason to depose of everyone's favourite mad dictator, they just fail to do the right thing.... joking.

I jumped in when I saw your dialogue. Just stating facts.

Anyway, the options were limited. It started when they were kids. Hitler Jugend had millions of members but it wasnt enough for Hitler. He wanted to brainwash everyone with racism and make them obey. The kids had to write the name of their father and his employer if they wanted to refuse membership. That was blackmail to get them to make the "right" choice. Then it simply became mandatory.

I dont think many dared to disobey orders, and most believed in the Nazi ideology anyway.

You don't think much at all as is obvious from your comments. 'Just stating facts'.....and then comes the opinion dressed up as facts. Try studying the history of the SS a little rather than making asinine remarks about brainwashing and pushing insidious idea that the bookkeeper either didn't know what he was doing and/or was not responsible for what he was doing. The SS was a voluntary elite corp. Your 'facts' might pass for facts in one or two bars in LOS but elsewhere no go.

Oh, so joining SS automatically made you a bad individual?

Both grandfathers of my friend were Swedishspeakers from Finland that joined to be able to fight the Russians.

[eliotness]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.
In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct.

Yes, OK. I even looked the whole thing up, so this thread has been quite educational so far.

But what are you hinting at, where is the connection to Gröning? I mean, I would love to refer to Germany's history in the 1930ies as "the big civil war when Hitler got deposed of" and nothing of Auschwitz and WW II,
but after Hitler came to power (Machtergreifung) in 1933, that would have been hard to imagine. And certainly what Gröning got taught at school (was about 13 then) sounded a lot different.

After all, the North Koreans of today would have a lot more personal reason to depose of everyone's favourite mad dictator, they just fail to do the right thing.... joking.

I jumped in when I saw your dialogue. Just stating facts.

Anyway, the options were limited. It started when they were kids. Hitler Jugend had millions of members but it wasnt enough for Hitler. He wanted to brainwash everyone with racism and make them obey. The kids had to write the name of their father and his employer if they wanted to refuse membership. That was blackmail to get them to make the "right" choice. Then it simply became mandatory.

I dont think many dared to disobey orders, and most believed in the Nazi ideology anyway.

You don't think much at all as is obvious from your comments. 'Just stating facts'.....and then comes the opinion dressed up as facts. Try studying the history of the SS a little rather than making asinine remarks about brainwashing and pushing insidious idea that the bookkeeper either didn't know what he was doing and/or was not responsible for what he was doing. The SS was a voluntary elite corp. Your 'facts' might pass for facts in one or two bars in LOS but elsewhere no go.

Oh, so joining SS automatically made you a bad individual?

Both grandfathers of my friend were Swedishspeakers from Finland that joined to be able to fight the Russians.

Ģood and valid point. The Waffen SS has got a bad name because of the cruel behaviour of many of its "German" regiments/divisions, especially well reported in Normandy and Yugoslavia. The foreign volunteer regiments had generally little involvement in mass executions and fought solely on the eastern front, because as you said, they joined to fight against the communist threat from Stalin's Russia. Most regiments of northen european volunteers served in the SS Wiking Division. This division became a fully armoured division (panzer) during the war in Russia and fought with great valour. I may be corrected, but I am unaware of any war crimes allegations against that division. The regiments fighting in Yugoslavia were a very different matter and consisted of ethnic german and muslim "volunteers".

[SheungWan]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.

In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct.

Yes, OK. I even looked the whole thing up, so this thread has been quite educational so far.

But what are you hinting at, where is the connection to Gröning? I mean, I would love to refer to Germany's history in the 1930ies as "the big civil war when Hitler got deposed of" and nothing of Auschwitz and WW II,

but after Hitler came to power (Machtergreifung) in 1933, that would have been hard to imagine. And certainly what Gröning got taught at school (was about 13 then) sounded a lot different.

After all, the North Koreans of today would have a lot more personal reason to depose of everyone's favourite mad dictator, they just fail to do the right thing.... joking.

I jumped in when I saw your dialogue. Just stating facts.

Anyway, the options were limited. It started when they were kids. Hitler Jugend had millions of members but it wasnt enough for Hitler. He wanted to brainwash everyone with racism and make them obey. The kids had to write the name of their father and his employer if they wanted to refuse membership. That was blackmail to get them to make the "right" choice. Then it simply became mandatory.

I dont think many dared to disobey orders, and most believed in the Nazi ideology anyway.

You don't think much at all as is obvious from your comments. 'Just stating facts'.....and then comes the opinion dressed up as facts. Try studying the history of the SS a little rather than making asinine remarks about brainwashing and pushing insidious idea that the bookkeeper either didn't know what he was doing and/or was not responsible for what he was doing. The SS was a voluntary elite corp. Your 'facts' might pass for facts in one or two bars in LOS but elsewhere no go.

Oh, so joining SS automatically made you a bad individual?

Both grandfathers of my friend were Swedishspeakers from Finland that joined to be able to fight the Russians.

Yes they were. And be more careful having friends making excuses for members of their family who were members of the SS. Oh, sorry, you have appeared to have joined that club as well.

[SheungWan]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.

In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct.

Yes, OK. I even looked the whole thing up, so this thread has been quite educational so far.

But what are you hinting at, where is the connection to Gröning? I mean, I would love to refer to Germany's history in the 1930ies as "the big civil war when Hitler got deposed of" and nothing of Auschwitz and WW II,

but after Hitler came to power (Machtergreifung) in 1933, that would have been hard to imagine. And certainly what Gröning got taught at school (was about 13 then) sounded a lot different.

After all, the North Koreans of today would have a lot more personal reason to depose of everyone's favourite mad dictator, they just fail to do the right thing.... joking.

I jumped in when I saw your dialogue. Just stating facts.

Anyway, the options were limited. It started when they were kids. Hitler Jugend had millions of members but it wasnt enough for Hitler. He wanted to brainwash everyone with racism and make them obey. The kids had to write the name of their father and his employer if they wanted to refuse membership. That was blackmail to get them to make the "right" choice. Then it simply became mandatory.

I dont think many dared to disobey orders, and most believed in the Nazi ideology anyway.

You don't think much at all as is obvious from your comments. 'Just stating facts'.....and then comes the opinion dressed up as facts. Try studying the history of the SS a little rather than making asinine remarks about brainwashing and pushing insidious idea that the bookkeeper either didn't know what he was doing and/or was not responsible for what he was doing. The SS was a voluntary elite corp. Your 'facts' might pass for facts in one or two bars in LOS but elsewhere no go.

Oh, so joining SS automatically made you a bad individual?

Both grandfathers of my friend were Swedishspeakers from Finland that joined to be able to fight the Russians.

Ģood and valid point. The Waffen SS has got a bad name because of the cruel behaviour of many of its "German" regiments/divisions, especially well reported in Normandy and Yugoslavia. The foreign volunteer regiments had generally little involvement in mass executions and fought solely on the eastern front, because as you said, they joined to fight against the communist threat from Stalin's Russia. Most regiments of northen european volunteers served in the SS Wiking Division. This division became a fully armoured division (panzer) during the war in Russia and fought with great valour. I may be corrected, but I am unaware of any war crimes allegations against that division. The regiments fighting in Yugoslavia were a very different matter and consisted of ethnic german and muslim "volunteers".

A rubbish and thoroughly useless attempt trying to whitewash the 'foreign' Nazis. They're all coming out of the woodwork today.

[eliotness]

The "night of the long knives" I was referring to was not "Kristallnacht". The event I meant was when the SS on Hitler's instruction killed the leaders of the SA and many more "opponents". It's probably got another name in German.

Ok, I got you now. In English usage the German or English phrase usually refers to the Röhm-Putsch in 1934, i.e the purge against the SA for ideological differences.
In German usage the phrase can also relate to the November-Pogromes in 1938. The SS used it for that.

Still, with a view to my reasoning it should not make that much difference.

Not sure I agree with your phrase "the purge against the SA for ideological differences". My understanding was 1. Rohm posed a direct threat to Hitler's leadership of the party and 2. To get the backing of the senior army officers he (Hitler) had to neuter the SA, which the army considered a threat to their "power".

The long knives night was because the SA was perceived as a threat, correct.

Yes, OK. I even looked the whole thing up, so this thread has been quite educational so far.

But what are you hinting at, where is the connection to Gröning? I mean, I would love to refer to Germany's history in the 1930ies as "the big civil war when Hitler got deposed of" and nothing of Auschwitz and WW II,
but after Hitler came to power (Machtergreifung) in 1933, that would have been hard to imagine. And certainly what Gröning got taught at school (was about 13 then) sounded a lot different.

After all, the North Koreans of today would have a lot more personal reason to depose of everyone's favourite mad dictator, they just fail to do the right thing.... joking.

I jumped in when I saw your dialogue. Just stating facts.

Anyway, the options were limited. It started when they were kids. Hitler Jugend had millions of members but it wasnt enough for Hitler. He wanted to brainwash everyone with racism and make them obey. The kids had to write the name of their father and his employer if they wanted to refuse membership. That was blackmail to get them to make the "right" choice. Then it simply became mandatory.

I dont think many dared to disobey orders, and most believed in the Nazi ideology anyway.

You don't think much at all as is obvious from your comments. 'Just stating facts'.....and then comes the opinion dressed up as facts. Try studying the history of the SS a little rather than making asinine remarks about brainwashing and pushing insidious idea that the bookkeeper either didn't know what he was doing and/or was not responsible for what he was doing. The SS was a voluntary elite corp. Your 'facts' might pass for facts in one or two bars in LOS but elsewhere no go.

Oh, so joining SS automatically made you a bad individual?

Both grandfathers of my friend were Swedishspeakers from Finland that joined to be able to fight the Russians.

Ģood and valid point. The Waffen SS has got a bad name because of the cruel behaviour of many of its "German" regiments/divisions, especially well reported in Normandy and Yugoslavia. The foreign volunteer regiments had generally little involvement in mass executions and fought solely on the eastern front, because as you said, they joined to fight against the communist threat from Stalin's Russia. Most regiments of northen european volunteers served in the SS Wiking Division. This division became a fully armoured division (panzer) during the war in Russia and fought with great valour. I may be corrected, but I am unaware of any war crimes allegations against that division. The regiments fighting in Yugoslavia were a very different matter and consisted of ethnic german and muslim "volunteers".

A rubbish and thoroughly useless attempt trying to whitewash the 'foreign' Nazis. They're all coming out of the woodwork today.

I did not try to whitewash the "foreign" nazis. 1930-40s Europe was a very different place than now. Just coming out of the great depression, a decade of no jobs. In our comfortable modern world it is very hard to appreciate their thoughts. Bear in mind there was no internet, no TV, limited radio. British royalty and senior politicians had been to Germany and admired what the nazis had achieved. After the sweeping success of the German military in 1939 to 1941 many Europeans regarded the nazis as the "future". Those in the Baltic States, Finland and the Ukraine regarded the Nazis as liberators after suffering under Stalin's terror. There was basically a choice between two evils, Hitler or Stalin, which side would you have chosen ? There was no other choice. Eastern Europe had never had democracy before WW1 and afterwards only a decade of "freedom" before hell happened. Every country in Western Europe had both extreme right and left parties. The USA was prepared to take a back seat, until Japan attacked and even then it was Hitler who declared war on the USA, not the other way round. It was only in Britain that the extreme right failed to gain any credibility - there was a big neo-nazi party in the USA.

I suggest you read up a bit more on the period before making slanderous remarks