Former Auschwitz guard, 94, convicted as accessory to murder

[Saradoc1972]

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.

The two of us had that discussion earlier in this thread, posts #76 and #77, didn't we?

Denying the holocaust used to be an offense in Germany as libel against the Jewish survivors and their descendants until they introduced a special provision for that after Zündel.

In brief, German courts held "the truth" in these cases to be slanderous false "facts", as the there is too much evidence to earnestly go against that, not an opinion protected under freedom of speech provisions.

Theoretically you could, though. Israel has a better provision in its criminal code for this matter inasmuch that (very) theoretically you are entitled to prove your views as a defense.

I would not recommend trying that though, starting with the impossibility to do so. Hence, results in Israel in Germany are essentially the same.

And no, you would get away with clipping a few thousands off, maybe even a million. But I don't see the point as even a million is more people than you can imagine on one heap, famished and murdered.

Anyone interested, do look up that earlier post of mine. Big legal carnival.

(had an edit here, mixed it up)

Edited July 25, 2015 by Saradoc1972

[Saradoc1972]

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.

Yep, pop goes the weasel (out of the woodwork - good one!), here I go again.

I have commented in an earlier thread (post 52) on "volunteering" or rather "being volunteered" for the SS.

That being said, Gröning actually did volunteer. As in: the SS, not a gang in Auschwitz, that wasn't on the horizon in 1940.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Saradoc1972

[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.

[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.

Anybody who wants to claim that legally 'quite possibly' = 'beyond reasonable doubt' is someone who both understands very little and is duplicitous. At best.

[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.

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

The slanderous remark being that you wanted to take a ride on the experience of your friend's grandfather the Finland Nazi who seems to have successfully persuaded you and your mate that he wasn't really a Nazi, just a little old patriot. Good job so many German children/grandchildren have not been prepared to buy into the older family evasions. And certainly not come on to threads like this and try to create some 'innocent' space for our 'friend' the Nazi bookkeeper and hopefully SS Granddaddy in your minds That is what you are after, you and others.

Edited July 25, 2015 by SheungWan

[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

The slanderous remark being that you wanted to take a ride on the experience of your friend's grandfather the Finland Nazi who seems to have successfully persuaded you and your mate that he wasn't really a Nazi, just a little old patriot. Good job so many German children/grandchildren have not been prepared to buy into the older family evasions. And certainly not come on to threads like this and try to create some 'innocent' space for our 'friend' the Nazi bookkeeper and hopefully SS Granddaddy in your minds That is what you are after, you and others.

Your knowledge of history, or rather lack of it, is rather worrying. Finland was attacked by Russia before Sept 1939 and they fought well despite having no material support from Britain or France. Eventually the Finns had to surrender and seeded part of their land to Russia. When the Nazis invaded Poland, Stalin sent the Red Army to occupy the Baltic States, before carving out his own part of Poland (and having most of the Polish Officers taken prisoner executed). Despite Britain and France declaring war on Germany they did not give material support to the brave Polish Army. That was followed by the take-over of Denmark and Norway, followed shortly after by the fall of Holland, Belgium and France. I repeat what I said earlier, there was no internet, facebook or TV. The Nazis had total control of the radio in all occupied counties. People were subject to heavy propaganda, so many young men thought that maybe that was the future, the 1000 year Reich.


We looking back can easily say they were so very wrong and some, if not many, were war criminals. But it was a so very different world then. After all look how many "respectful" British families and businesses made vast fortunes from the Slave Trade and cruel activities of the British Empire.

Many countries in Europe are still in denial about how many of their young men fought in the Waffen SS. There were 10s of thousands and if you include the Russians drafted in towards the end of the war there were 1/2 million non Germans in the Waffen SS. I can accept your argument as long as you say the same about Stalin's Russia where even more innocent people were killed directly and indirectly by the KGB et al. Finally, if Britain and France had a pact with Poland, why didn't we declare war on Russia as well. It was obvious to everyone that the German/Russian pact earlier in 1939 was for the carve up of Poland.

[eliotness]

Mr SheungWang, if you can be bothered to check earlier posts you will have seen that I said the mass bombing of Germany was necessary to ensure as quick end to the war as was possible. The Nazis had perfected V2 rockets and were developing both submarines capable of delivering these rockets and nuclear warheads to arm them. If mass bombing hadn't happened then the war could have had a very different ending, we'd all be speaking German and Thailand would be a Japanese colony.

Furthermore I tried to differentiate (unsuccessfully) between the SS and the Waffen SS. That was a mistake on my part, sorry, but my reasoning was that the SS who worked at the camps were able to request a transfer to an active, front-line regiment. In the case of camp guards that would have been, early in the war, the 3rd SS Totenkopf division. There are many war crimes attributed to that division, but as most of there "soldiers" were former concentration camp guards that, unfortunately, was to be expected. My original point was if Groning had not agreed, or was uncomfortable with what happening at the camp he could have asked for a transfer. Any SS man requesting a transfer toe front-line service could not be refused. The fact that he didn't says to me that he would rather help in the extermination of 100 of thousands of Jews than fight the Red Army. To me that makes him both guilty and a coward.

Under no circumstances do I support extremists of either side, but I do appreciate history put in context.

[Saradoc1972]

Mr SheungWang, if you can be bothered to check earlier posts you will have seen that I said the mass bombing of Germany was necessary to ensure as quick end to the war as was possible. The Nazis had perfected V2 rockets and were developing both submarines capable of delivering these rockets and nuclear warheads to arm them. If mass bombing hadn't happened then the war could have had a very different ending, we'd all be speaking German and Thailand would be a Japanese colony.

I think that is exaggerated. Germany was a decade away from nuclear armament. While there were experiments with heavy water, all the allies found after the war was a test reactor far away from any functionality.

What Germany did have was nerve gas, but Hitler did not want to use it as he feared the allies had it too and would then use it in reciprocation. The allies, in turn, did not have the faintest idea of nerve gas.

Forget about the V2 as well. It did "bother" the British a great deal as they could not defend against it, but all it could do was deliver pin pricks. Lack of accuracy, too expensive, too few.

It was a remarkable development, though, if you think about what they were able to do back then without any electronics to speak of.

Any plans for U-boats were 25 years ahead of the time likewise. Hitler wanted to send a couple of them to the US to deliver some sort of token revenge. One U-boat, 4 weeks travel time, 4 inaccurate rockets, big deal.

The Japanese had a functional submersible aircraft carrier prototype. Totally amazing for the time, but likewise lacking any strategic value.

Strategic bombing had its role and neutralized 25% of German industry, but it failed to make the impact on morale the Allies had hoped for. It did its part, though.

Anyway, even without "moral bombings" I don't think Germany had any hopes of winning the war after America joined in, just too big.

[eliotness]

Mr SheungWang, if you can be bothered to check earlier posts you will have seen that I said the mass bombing of Germany was necessary to ensure as quick end to the war as was possible. The Nazis had perfected V2 rockets and were developing both submarines capable of delivering these rockets and nuclear warheads to arm them. If mass bombing hadn't happened then the war could have had a very different ending, we'd all be speaking German and Thailand would be a Japanese colony.

I think that is exaggerated. Germany was a decade away from nuclear armament. While there were experiments with heavy water, all the allies found after the war was a test reactor far away from any functionality.

What Germany did have was nerve gas, but Hitler did not want to use it as he feared the allies had it too and woulde then use it in reciprocation. The allies, in turn, did not have the faintest idea of nerve gas.

Forget about the V2 as well. It did "bother" the British a great deal as they could not defend against it, but all it could do was deliver pin pricks. Lack of accuracy, too expensive, too few.

It was a remarkable development, though, if you think about what they were able to do back then without any electronics to speak of.

Any plans for U-boats were 25 years ahead of the time likewise. Hitler wanted to send a couple of them to the US to deliver some sort of token revenge. One U-boat, 4 weeks travel time, 4 inaccurate rockets, big deal.

The Japanese had a functional submersible aircraft carrier prototype. Totally amazing for the time, but likewise lacking any strategic value.

Strategic bombing had its role and neutralized 25% of German industry, but it failed to make the impact on morale the Allies had hoped for. It did its part, though.

Anyway, even without "moral bombings" I don't think Germany had any hopes of winning the war after America joined in, just too big.

Yes Germany was a long way from perfecting the bomb, but at the time the Allies weren't sure. The Manhatten Project was a race to get the bomb before the Germans. Ironically it was Jewish scientists and refugees from the nazis that were a major part of the team that perfected the bomb.

The USA never "joined in", Hitler declared war on them soon after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. 4 V2s with 1 ton warheads would have caused major panic if directed at New York. If those warheads had been nuclear, it might have knocked the USA out of the European war.

The V2 "pin pricks" killed a lot of people, with no warning and therefore were a severe test of morale.

I don't think in retrospect that gas was ever an option, especially as Hitler fought in the trenches in WW1 and was quite aware the Allies would have had to reply in kind. Not too sure about their lack of nerve gas, but I'm sure the Allies had plenty of options available, including biological.

I do dispute your time scale on submarines. I reckon they could have had the capability within an extra 5 years. Even in 1945 their submarines were much more advanced than the Allies.

I would also dispute your figure of 25% of German industry neutralised as by 1944 "firestorm" bombing was starting to happen and railways were major targets. I admit V1 & V2 production was moved underground, but by then it was only a matter of time before raw materials, manpower and communications were brought to a total halt.

You are correct in that strategic bombing failed in breaking the morale of the German population, just as the Nazi bombing failed to do so in the UK. However from 1940 until D-day it was the only way we could hit at Germany (excluding N. Africa). So the bombing was as much to raise the morale at home as it was to wreck the Germans morale.

Your final comment is so correct, even the Japanese commander-in-chief realised that if they didn't beat the USA within the first year then they would lose the war due to the industrial power of America. 0

[Saradoc1972]

This thread is kind of dying down, so I'd like to get back to Oscar Gröning and what to do with him.

So for a recap: was born 1921, father struggled financially during the recession and economic problems imposed on Germany because of WW I,

was put into some nationalist youth-organization before Hitler even got to power, joined Hitlerjugend aged 13 (difficult to avoid).

Anything the German Reich had been doing in its recent history like the Herero-uprising was hushed up or properly distorted in history lessons

at school. Felt he needed do something against what perceived enemies were doing to "his Germany".

NO internet to look it up or get a different perspective. Was indoctrinated over both his ears.

Joined the SS at the ripe old age of 19, no mass-murder on the horizon. Yes, Jews were dying along with many more from dislike groups,

but that seemed to be normal casualties of war. At least that is what Gröning owned up to what he had thought of that back then, before Auschwitz.

Had no idea he was going to Auschwitz, once there would have been hard pressed to get out. Tried to get out, maybe just not hard enough for

fear of his own life. Did not want to take these chances at the fighting front. Never personally laid hands on anyone, never volunteered for any of this.

Even complained to camp-superiors, but was told to shut up.

[Saradoc1972]

After the war the allies had a file on Gröning with the remark of "common design", i.e. suspected him of having been an accessory to mass murder on the sole cause of having been SS and in Auschwitz all along. Was sent to the UK as a POW, did some labour, had a good time by his own recounting.

The western Allies had a lot of trials against surviving big-wigs, industrials and the "monsters" in those camps. Then decided they needed Germany to ward off the emerging Warsaw-pact and communism. Let the minnows go without a trial, common design or not, after 1952.

Former Nazis had a difficult time in Germany during de-nazification, but they had to allow huge numbers of them, including former SS, back into their jobs including being judges. There were too many of them and they were needed to keep the country going.

Germany had its own trials against Nazis and Auschwitz camp-guards, but the officials were rather reluctant. Statutory limitation was 20 years at first, put it up to 30y just in time. Up until 1968 any mitigation of an offense -such as only being an accessory- had an effect on statutory limitation. So if found not to have killed with their own hands or not in a position to order those killings, a lot of indicted Nazis including camp-guards walked out of court scot-free, even if much higher up than Gröning and more directly involved. Those could not be trialled again.

Such an oversight! Well, actually they did not want those trials. And there were a lot of judges who had been Nazis themselves. The German Chancellor from 1966-1969 was a Mr. Kiesinger, had been a moderately high-up active Nazi himself, though not SS.

The whole things was sort of hushed up in Germany right up into the 1980ies, nobody wanted to have that discussion. My own history teacher at school “only managed” to get to WW II, but never to Auschwitz and nothing past that before the school-year 87/88 was over, along with mandatory history lessons.

Removed statutory limitations for murder along with aiding and abetting. Investigated Gröning for murder starting 1975, decided he had not been a murderer in his own right, did not see his acts, i.e. guarding suitcases at the ramp, as sufficient to convict him as an accessory. Officially closed proceedings.

What Gröning did 1942-1944 had been known all along since the late 1960ies, as he had spoken out against holocaust-denial and been a crown witness in many trials against the real perpetrators. Lived his life an upstanding citizen without legal trouble, thought it was all over, that he had done wrong back then morally, but not legally.

Then, in 2004, they decided to change their attitude to what should be held accessory to murder. Same law §211 StGB, different interpretation. Started dragging old geezers from all over the world to court. Had the rather unsatisfactory Demjanjuk trial, where the defendant died before they could get that new legal opinion tested by German Supreme court.

Went after some 30 old geezers who were found unfit for trial and left alone. In one case they dragged some 94-y-o out of his old-peoples' home on his wheel-chair for pretrial detention, until a judge whacked them round the head. Went after Gröning who apparently had the misfortune to be in remarkable health.

Anyone still left will be going before juvenile court on account of having been less than 21-y-o when things happened. And to youth-detention with teenagers if guilty. Or rather not.

[Saradoc1972]

So, what do you think would be fair to do with Oskar Gröning?

Right now he has been ordered to go to prison for 4 years, i.e. 48 months, with 22 months considered already served due to overly long proceedings. One hell of overly long proceedings, 70 years, when the truth had been out all along, thanks to the defendant himself.

In his case they will most probably cut his sentence to half for good behaviour as a "first offender". If he is found fit to go to prison at all, that is. So that will mean 24 months minus those 22 months, he will be going for 2 months total with all the troubling procedures when first admitted. Just great! State attorney had only asked for 38 months total to spare him that.

His biggest problem is not that prison term, but the costs for the trial, something in the region of 250.000 Euros. Should he manage to die before the appeal goes through, he and his widow will be spared those. Suicide? Indirect death-sentence?

Sounds unfair to me, especially as they are using his own statements as a witness against him. Could have refused to be a witness in all the courts in the 60ies to 80ies as he could not be made to incriminate himself. Did go through with it for morality's sake, though, all the time thinking he had never incurred a criminal liability.

They should have trialled him in 1980 at the latest, maybe sent him to prison for 2 or 3 years. Bear in mind most of the Nazis convicted by the allied courts sometimes were jailed for 10 or 15 years, but mostly let go after some 5 years. They were needed in Germany. Gröning might have served 2 years if convicted by the allies and have been free to live his life forever after, just like anyone else of his "caliber". And not bankrupted.

Here is what I think: They should have changed the law for those cases and given out token verdicts.

Have a trial by all means, invite all the victims and let them be co-prosecutors and witnesses, but have the German state shoulder the costs. It's not the defendants fault they waited until all victims and witnesses had spread out all over the world.

Give out a token verdict, call murder murder, but no jail time. That just doesn't do with half-demented nonagenarians for things 70y past.

The benefit would be that all the accused can honestly own up to what they did, might even shed some light on history when they can speak freely.

[hawker9000]

This thread is kind of dying down, so I'd like to get back to Oscar Gröning and what to do with him.

So for a recap: was born 1921, father struggled financially during the recession and economic problems imposed on Germany because of WW I,

was put into some nationalist youth-organization before Hitler even got to power, joined Hitlerjugend aged 13 (difficult to avoid).

Anything the German Reich had been doing in its recent history like the Herero-uprising was hushed up or properly distorted in history lessons

at school. Felt he needed do something against what perceived enemies were doing to "his Germany".

NO internet to look it up or get a different perspective. Was indoctrinated over both his ears.

Joined the SS at the ripe old age of 19, no mass-murder on the horizon. Yes, Jews were dying along with many more from dislike groups,

but that seemed to be normal casualties of war. At least that is what Gröning owned up to what he had thought of that back then, before Auschwitz.

Had no idea he was going to Auschwitz, once there would have been hard pressed to get out. Tried to get out, maybe just not hard enough for

fear of his own life. Did not want to take these chances at the fighting front. Never personally laid hands on anyone, never volunteered for any of this.

Even complained to camp-superiors, but was told to shut up.

" Tried to get out, maybe just not hard enough for fear of his own life."

....and so the story of how millions died in the camps.

Sorry. He should've tried harder. So should have many others. "Lie down with dogs...."

[losworld]

One can make an argument that by not speaking out about the atrocities their army was committing the German people shared some of the guilt. Same is happening in the Arab world right now. Few are brave enough to speak out, especially ones in positions of authority. The King of Jordan is one of the few exceptions and is a heroic man. Few were heroic dissenters during Hitler's atrocities. So, does my heart bleed for those civilians? A little, maybe.

NOT the German Army (Wehrmacht) was to blame here, Auschwitz was purely SS-business and kept under a close lid as even they feared a public backlash. Your chap Oscar Gröning was reminded of his oath to the SS to keep his mouth shut when he was transferred to Auschwitz from his pen-pushing job.

The Wehrmacht certainly had their share in war atrocities, but mostly the kind of "things that happen during war" and not in any organized fashion.

You did not speak up against the Nazis, you followed orders. There were totally ruthless in killing dissenters, they were hanging 15-y-o from street lanterns for not wanting to join totally useless Volkssturm last-ditch suicide missions. All the individual courage got them a place on contemporary exhibitions in German city-halls with their picture and details as to how they got condemned and executed right up until mid-1945.

"Individual courage" does not need to be "recognized" to still be individual courage. Heroes are not always recognized as such, particularly in their own time, or even ever, but that does make them anything less than heroes. Heroism is not a matter of "what it gets you".

I can understand someone who served in the German (or Japanese) Army, as long as they weren't personally involved in any atrocities, claiming that they were forced to serve. I draw the line at allowing them to claim anything "honorable" about that service however. They fought for a brutal, inhuman, rapacious dictator and regime and have no right to claim anything honorable about it, unless it was an effort to overthrow it. I also draw the line at obedience to orders to commit atrocities. That's simply criminal. Not as criminal as authorship or actual willing support for those atrocities, but still criminal to have committed them, even under orders. It may seem like a harsh standard, but humanity DOES carry with certain inherent responsibilities, just as it carries with it certain inalienable rights. And human beings have a duty to refuse to participate in an atrocity, even at the cost of one's own life.

Nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. Hundreds of thousands of women and children were slaughtered when allied forces intentionally torched citizens at Dresden. Laos and Vietnam were carpet bombed. How about rounding up these guys as well. Weren't they just following orders?

Edited July 29, 2015 by losworld

[Saradoc1972]

This thread is kind of dying down, so I'd like to get back to Oscar Gröning and what to do with him.

So for a recap: was born 1921, father struggled financially during the recession and economic problems imposed on Germany because of WW I,

was put into some nationalist youth-organization before Hitler even got to power, joined Hitlerjugend aged 13 (difficult to avoid).

Anything the German Reich had been doing in its recent history like the Herero-uprising was hushed up or properly distorted in history lessons

at school. Felt he needed do something against what perceived enemies were doing to "his Germany".

NO internet to look it up or get a different perspective. Was indoctrinated over both his ears.

Joined the SS at the ripe old age of 19, no mass-murder on the horizon. Yes, Jews were dying along with many more from dislike groups,

but that seemed to be normal casualties of war. At least that is what Gröning owned up to what he had thought of that back then, before Auschwitz.

Had no idea he was going to Auschwitz, once there would have been hard pressed to get out. Tried to get out, maybe just not hard enough for

fear of his own life. Did not want to take these chances at the fighting front. Never personally laid hands on anyone, never volunteered for any of this.

Even complained to camp-superiors, but was told to shut up.

" Tried to get out, maybe just not hard enough for fear of his own life."

....and so the story of how millions died in the camps.

Sorry. He should've tried harder. So should have many others. "Lie down with dogs...."

In an ideal world... yes. And Hitler would not have been possible. Hindsight is a great thing, moral superiority is even better.

If you (and I myself for that matter) had the choice of a 1/3 chance of getting killed yourself, against going along on a minor basis with what seemed immoral against someone

whom you firmly believe (because of indoctrination) you are right to hold a grudge against ... would you ...?

Well, Gröning himself said in his closing statement, Auschwitz was a place where nobody should have contributed,

It's all a moral thing, so you are totally entitled to your opinion. Just spare a thought to "personal guilt" while you are at it.

[hawker9000]

One can make an argument that by not speaking out about the atrocities their army was committing the German people shared some of the guilt. Same is happening in the Arab world right now. Few are brave enough to speak out, especially ones in positions of authority. The King of Jordan is one of the few exceptions and is a heroic man. Few were heroic dissenters during Hitler's atrocities. So, does my heart bleed for those civilians? A little, maybe.

NOT the German Army (Wehrmacht) was to blame here, Auschwitz was purely SS-business and kept under a close lid as even they feared a public backlash. Your chap Oscar Gröning was reminded of his oath to the SS to keep his mouth shut when he was transferred to Auschwitz from his pen-pushing job.

The Wehrmacht certainly had their share in war atrocities, but mostly the kind of "things that happen during war" and not in any organized fashion.

You did not speak up against the Nazis, you followed orders. There were totally ruthless in killing dissenters, they were hanging 15-y-o from street lanterns for not wanting to join totally useless Volkssturm last-ditch suicide missions. All the individual courage got them a place on contemporary exhibitions in German city-halls with their picture and details as to how they got condemned and executed right up until mid-1945.

"Individual courage" does not need to be "recognized" to still be individual courage. Heroes are not always recognized as such, particularly in their own time, or even ever, but that does make them anything less than heroes. Heroism is not a matter of "what it gets you".

I can understand someone who served in the German (or Japanese) Army, as long as they weren't personally involved in any atrocities, claiming that they were forced to serve. I draw the line at allowing them to claim anything "honorable" about that service however. They fought for a brutal, inhuman, rapacious dictator and regime and have no right to claim anything honorable about it, unless it was an effort to overthrow it. I also draw the line at obedience to orders to commit atrocities. That's simply criminal. Not as criminal as authorship or actual willing support for those atrocities, but still criminal to have committed them, even under orders. It may seem like a harsh standard, but humanity DOES carry with certain inherent responsibilities, just as it carries with it certain inalienable rights. And human beings have a duty to refuse to participate in an atrocity, even at the cost of one's own life.

Nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. Hundreds of thousands of women and children were slaughtered when allied forces intentionally torched citizens at Dresden. Laos and Vietnam were carpet bombed. How about rounding up these guys as well. Weren't they just following orders?

I always love to hear the know-nothings preaching about how evil it was to drop the bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, know-nothings who weren't on the list for the invasion force, know-nothings who have no concept of the fatalities that would've resulted to both Allied forces as well as the military and civilian defenders of the Japanese home islands (totaling in the MILLIONS), know-nothings who didn't have to decide whether to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of allied lives in an invasion or use "the bomb", and know-nothings who keep forgetting WHO BOMBED PEARL HARBOR! I wonder what YOUR decision in Truman's place, having to answer to millions of outraged Americans, many of whom were grieving sons or wives or parents of the many dead on South Pacific island beaches OR of veterans of those landings slated for the final invasion of Japan, would've been. Yes, I wonder... 'A particularly disgusting tactic by Holocaust Deniers to deflect attention from the Holocaust.

As for Dresden, maybe Germany shouldn't have started by bombing London during the Battle of Britain.... Anyway, just another of the usual tired attempts to deflect the discussion from the Holocaust.

Bombing of Laos & Vietnam vs the wholesale terrorizing of S. Vietnamese civilian villagers by Viet Cong and NVA. It's a tired argument; 'has nothing whatsoever to do with and isn't at all comparable to the German death camps. Yet another Holocaust Denier tactic to sidetrack attention from the Holocaust. One as disgusting and despicable as the next.

. . .

Actually, I'd like to see Holocaust Deniers & Minimizers rounded up.

[Linky]

[quote name="hawker9000" post="9678402"

Actually, I'd like to see Holocaust Deniers & Minimizers rounded up.

So you want to act the same as thise you condemn. Nice.

Next.

[hawker9000]

So you want to act the same as thise you condemn. Nice.

Next.

Oh, I suppose a denier (or Jew-hater, or sympathizer, or any neo-Nazi in good standing for that matter) might think & say something like that. No reason for decent people to concern themselves too greatly with such muttering though.

=======================================

Karl: Say, Eric, I hear the war's not gone too well in the east. And they say the Allies might invade France.

Eric: Yeah. You know, they'll probably hang us for what's going on here at Auschwitz.

Karl: Nah. Just tell 'em you were nothing but a lowly enlisted bookkeeper.

Eric: Bookkeeper? OMG yeah, "booking" the gold teeth, the hair we shaved off their heads before sending them into the "showers", the shoes & clothes from the "dressing rooms", the wedding rings taken off their fingers, all their other belongings, not to mention the hundreds of bodies - sometimes MORE - a day! My "books" have all THOSE facts & figures. And as if that weren't bad enough, we've all taken our turns with the other duties, filling in for the ones on leave or on the sick list or transferred or temporarily assigned elsewhere. Everyone will know what we've done here! OMG. They'll hang us for sure!

Karl: Quit worrying. The lawyers & judges will take care of us.

Eric: The laywers & judges? What do they know? None of them here! And why should they care about us when we lose the war and the Allies come?

Karl: Eric, you're a very naive fellow, aren't you? Why it was the lawyers & judges who made the forced sterilizations, the medical "treatments", the relocations to the ghettos, the confiscation of Jewish property, and finally the Transportation possible! Der Fuehrer couldn't have done any of it without the lawyers and the judges!

Eric: Oh, but Karl! We won't be able to say we were just regular soldiers. We are "elite" SS FPS! The Allies will know, everybody will know, what we've done here and in the other camps. And that we volunteered!

Karl: Nonsense. You're a BOOKKEEPER! You just followed orders! Remember that! We did it for Germany, and the German people! Right-thinking people will always stand by us. Always.

========================================================================

[Saradoc1972]

The actual verdict is out in writing. Anyone still following this thread?

I might translate the salient points of it, not that whole thing, that would be 41 pages.

[hawker9000]

Essentially, Guilty As Charged, but we don't want him to have to spend the rest of his life behind bars, so only 4 yrs, right?

And taking into account the inevitable appeals, he possibly won't actually ever see the inside of any jail cell...

But, you know, to give the devil (or someone close enough to it as far as I'm concerned) his due, he DID out himself by coming forward to confront a holocaust denier with the truth, first person. In doing that he did humanity some service. At least that's how I understand the genesis of this trial.

[Saradoc1972]

Essentially, Guilty As Charged, but we don't want him to have to spend the rest of his life behind bars, so only 4 yrs, right?

And taking into account the inevitable appeals, he possibly won't actually ever see the inside of any jail cell...

But, you know, to give the devil (or someone close enough to it as far as I'm concerned) his due, he DID out himself by coming forward to confront a holocaust denier with the truth, first person. In doing that he did humanity some service. At least that's how I understand the genesis of this trial.

About my line of thinking.

As I wrote: have a trial, pass out a token verdict calling murder murder, spare him the (enormous) costs, have him confess freely, shed some light on history.

In Germany, there is a legal institution called "Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich" which roughly translates to bringing perpetrator and victim together so there can be

some sort of mutual understanding and maybe atonement on the part of the criminal. It's actually what happened to some extend during the trial, when one

of the female survivors gave Gröning a hug in court. Might have had more of that.

They've found a new one! Now it's a 91-y-o female who operated the radio in one of those camps.

I am sorry, but my mind is set about his whole affair.

[geriatrickid]

Essentially, Guilty As Charged, but we don't want him to have to spend the rest of his life behind bars, so only 4 yrs, right?

And taking into account the inevitable appeals, he possibly won't actually ever see the inside of any jail cell...

But, you know, to give the devil (or someone close enough to it as far as I'm concerned) his due, he DID out himself by coming forward to confront a holocaust denier with the truth, first person. In doing that he did humanity some service. At least that's how I understand the genesis of this trial.

About my line of thinking.

As I wrote: have a trial, pass out a token verdict calling murder murder, spare him the (enormous) costs, have him confess freely, shed some light on history.

In Germany, there is a legal institution called "Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich" which roughly translates to bringing perpetrator and victim together so there can be

some sort of mutual understanding and maybe atonement on the part of the criminal. It's actually what happened to some extend during the trial, when one

of the female survivors gave Gröning a hug in court. Might have had more of that.

They've found a new one! Now it's a 91-y-o female who operated the radio in one of those camps.

I am sorry, but my mind is set about his whole affair.

Depressing logic. The guilty party denied his involvement for decades. The state did not pursue the case either through neglect or willful intent.

The nation of Germany did not make the prosecution of these people a priority. Yes, there are some victims still alive who may not wish to revisit the case. Unfortunately, based upon the events, there are far more who died in the camps who would have aked that the case be brought years ago.

We have been treated to a watered down version that doesn't upset sensibilities. Germany is the west's new best friend for now. A majority of Germans, particularly those from the lost generations aged 55 and older who wanted the case to go away. Fortunately, younger Germans are very different and understand right and wrong.

[Saradoc1972]

Depressing logic. The guilty party denied his involvement for decades.

The guilty party had opened up of his own volition as early as 1960.

The state did not pursue the case either through neglect or willful intent.

The nation of Germany did not make the prosecution of these people a priority. Yes, there are some victims still alive who may not wish to revisit the case. Unfortunately, based upon the events, there are far more who died in the camps who would have asked that the case be brought years ago.

Yes, probably was that way. The German state was not particularly avid to bring it up. Don't mention the war, now.

My point of view is, I wrote that earlier, I'd have fully supported the trial and possible jail-time if they had brought it on 35 years ago. Still late.

We have been treated to a watered down version that doesn't upset sensibilities.

No, it was the full works, more than 100 witnesses, expert-witnesses, costs in excess of 250k €, they rented a hall outside court to fit everyone in. It only went so speedily because Gröning was fully co-operating.

And because of that this mammoth of a trial went about with no big clashes and clamor.

Germany is the west's new best friend for now. A majority of Germans, particularly those from the lost generations aged 55 and older who wanted the case to go away. Fortunately, younger Germans are very different and understand right and wrong

Just wait until that Mutti Merkel euphoria is over, it's going to be hangover-time soon enough.

Well, I am only 43, and that is my point of view, it's a bit more differentiated, probably also tinted by the fact that I am a lawyer.

If you were to ask someone younger on the street, he'd find himself hard pressed to say something to the effect he would not have wanted that trial, so that is probably why they'd mostly agree with it.

I am walking the middle ground here, I have been looking a bit more into the facts and circumstances with a view as to what constitutes a justice system.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Saradoc1972