Auschwitz: Woman, 91, accused of complicity in murder of 260,000 Jews

[SheungWan]

The problem is often a simple one. Every adult Jew on the planet believes him/herself to be an expert on the academic view of the holocaust when reality, it is the emotional side that they, with exceptions of course, understand. There are classes in Holocaust studies at various colleges and universities. Debra Lipstadt is a very knowledgeable Jewess who is used often as an expert witness. She is a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta and knows her stuff.

You being an expert on 'every adult Jew on the planet'. Unfortunately the thin veneer of academic reference is just that. It is the case that every time there is a news item reference to the holocaust these guys pop their heads out making a poor effort to appear respectable but always giving us a flash of old.

[SheungWan]

Alarmingly when I responded to a post in another thread about how to deal with the current refugee crises in Europe, I provokingly asked if Auschwitz should be opened again to "solve" the refugee crisis, there was a response that that would be a good idea (with a few likes on the answer too).

I am often being (incorrectly) called antisemitic on TV because of my strong point of view against the murderous, fascist regime of Nethanyahu. Well you can call me antisemitic anytime as long as I dont get associated with idiots that would like to see Auschwitz re-opened, while these same idiots ironically also challenge my viewpoints on the Likud party.....

Not an even remotely amusing suggestion, but then anti-semites and the rest of the crew not exactly noted for their humour.

[RockyBeerbelly]

Alarmingly when I responded to a post in another thread about how to deal with the current refugee crises in Europe, I provokingly asked if Auschwitz should be opened again to "solve" the refugee crisis, there was a response that that would be a good idea (with a few likes on the answer too).

I am often being (incorrectly) called antisemitic on TV because of my strong point of view against the murderous, fascist regime of Nethanyahu. Well you can call me antisemitic anytime as long as I dont get associated with idiots that would like to see Auschwitz re-opened, while these same idiots ironically also challenge my viewpoints on the Likud party.....

Not an even remotely amusing suggestion, but then anti-semites and the rest of the crew not exactly noted for their humour.

It wasnt an amusing suggestion, far from it, I was really shocked that there are still idiots in this world that entertain the thought of sending people to extermination camps (and dare to admit it, although anonymously) because these people have a different background/believe/skin color. Supporting fascism is one of the worst mental diseases, that together with radical religious fanaticism. If only it could be eradicated the world would be a much nicer place....

[stevenl]

Alarmingly when I responded to a post in another thread about how to deal with the current refugee crises in Europe, I provokingly asked if Auschwitz should be opened again to "solve" the refugee crisis, there was a response that that would be a good idea (with a few likes on the answer too).

I am often being (incorrectly) called antisemitic on TV because of my strong point of view against the murderous, fascist regime of Nethanyahu. Well you can call me antisemitic anytime as long as I dont get associated with idiots that would like to see Auschwitz re-opened, while these same idiots ironically also challenge my viewpoints on the Likud party.....

Not an even remotely amusing suggestion, but then anti-semites and the rest of the crew not exactly noted for their humour.

It wasnt an amusing suggestion, far from it, I was really shocked that there are still idiots in this world that entertain the thought of sending people to extermination camps (and dare to admit it, although anonymously) because these people have a different background/believe/skin color. Supporting fascism is one of the worst mental diseases, that together with radical religious fanaticism. If only it could be eradicated the world would be a much nicer place....

I know a place to eradicate it

[micmichd]

Alarmingly when I responded to a post in another thread about how to deal with the current refugee crises in Europe, I provokingly asked if Auschwitz should be opened again to "solve" the refugee crisis, there was a response that that would be a good idea (with a few likes on the answer too).

I am often being (incorrectly) called antisemitic on TV because of my strong point of view against the murderous, fascist regime of Nethanyahu. Well you can call me antisemitic anytime as long as I dont get associated with idiots that would like to see Auschwitz re-opened, while these same idiots ironically also challenge my viewpoints on the Likud party.....

Not an even remotely amusing suggestion, but then anti-semites and the rest of the crew not exactly noted for their humour.

It wasnt an amusing suggestion, far from it, I was really shocked that there are still idiots in this world that entertain the thought of sending people to extermination camps (and dare to admit it, although anonymously) because these people have a different background/believe/skin color. Supporting fascism is one of the worst mental diseases, that together with radical religious fanaticism. If only it could be eradicated the world would be a much nicer place....

I know a place to eradicate it

Where?

[MiKT]

until 1990 there was a plaque at Auschwitz stating that 4 million people perished there

no doubt this was based on the confession by torture that the British got from one time commandant of Auschwitz Rudolph

Hoess

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html

after the fall of the Soviet Union documents were uncovered that proved this number could not be upheld

so now there is a plaque that reads 1 1/2 million perished

the 6 million overall figure remains unchanged

Perhapse you are unaware that more than 2 million Russians alone were murdered in Auschwitz.

The best estimates of the number of victims at the Auschwitz concentration camp complex, including the killing center at Auschwitz-Birkenau, between 1940 and 1945 are: Jews (1,095,000 deported to Auschwitz, of whom 960,000 died); Poles (147,000 deported, of whom 74,000 died); Roma (23,000 deported, of whom 21,000 died); Soviet prisoners of war (15,000 deported and died); and other nationalities (25,000 deported, of whom 12,000 died).

It is estimated that the SS and police deported at least 1.3 million people to the Auschwitz complex between 1940 and 1945. Of these, the camp authorities murdered approximately 1.1 million.

From http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005189

Exactly, the figures are well documented.

[Saradoc1972]

She appears to have been 20 years of age or there-abouts. Not normally considered a minor.

Very much depends on the legislation in the place of trial.

For Germany this would be Jugendgerichtsgesetz (JGG) which was enacted in 1908. Thereby, anyone younger than 18 at the time of committing an offense automatically goes before juvenile court. Anyone younger than 21 may go to juvenile court, usually will actually, if his/her development of character and independence was not quite like that of a grown adult, his deed was in line with offenses typically committed by juveniles (I know I'll get some slagging for this along the lines of youths typically working in a concentration camp, but I am just recounting the relevant factors ), and some other factors.

All in all, jurisdiction has evolved to a point where anyone under age 20 will more or less always go to juvenile court, at age 20 there still is a very good chance. As there will be no expert witnesses able to say anything on her state of mind back in 1944, she'll get the benefit of doubt here.

Juvenile court means, the verdict will be based on the normal provisions of German criminal code (StGB), but the sentencing will not. So, while murder usually carries a lifelong sentence, mitigated for only aiding and abetting it to some where between 3- 15 years as per §49 StGB (there can be further extra-legal mitigations for the overly long time before trial, as with Oskar Gröning), her juvenile sentence will be 8 years maximum.

Nowadays they've increased that first to 10, then to 15 years in a bid to combat Muslim honour-killings, but she can only be sentenced in line with the provisions in place back then.

Under the Nazis, there admittedly was the possibility of a death-sentence, but that is obviously enough ruled out for constitutional reasons. Balk at that as you may.

Another consequence will be that there will be no public hearings. Press will be allowed to film the judges and the defendant marching in, to then be shunted out. The public will not be allowed to witness the trial.

There further can be no co-plaintiffs and lawyers on their behalf, so costs will be kept to reasonable, as opposed to the Gröning trial.

If she is found guilty, she could in theory go to a juvenile detention center. That would be a cracker, but I don't think it's going to happen.

[Saradoc1972]

Why are all these so-called war criminals always brought to book when they're in their 90's?

The allied forces held records on each and everyone remotely connected to the death-camps, as a matter of fact, the low-down soldiers being indicted with "common design", meaning aiding and abetting the original crime of genocide and murder.

While they then went through with convicting and possibly hanging the big wigs until 1950, nobody, meaning both post-war Germany and the allies, wanted to go after the minnows. So people like Oskar Gröning and the present defendant went scot-free. They were needed to help Germany back on its feet after the war, the western allies wanted Germany back up to defend against the Warsaw pact, so nobody wanted a good couple of thousands in prisons instead of rebuilding Germany.

Half of the German judges at the time, for example, could have been implicated with aiding Nazi-cruelties or going along with that, but jailing them up would have dealt the death-blow to the whole post-war justice system. Just an example.

There were trials in Germany, under German legislation, on a regular basis, but those were hampered by statutory limitation, which for murder was at first 20 y, they then changed that just in time to 30 y, and then again to no limitation for murder only. They then faces the problem where statutory limitation hinged on the maximum sentence for the actual culpability, and as "only" abetting murder carried a mandatory mitigation to 3-15 y instead of life, they then had to change that. A lot of people who where "lucky" to be undergoing trial for abetting during that time actually went free because of that. So they changed it again.

Then some people found themselves indicted as late as the 1980ies, like Oskar Gröning, but did not go on trial as it was held that participation on a minor level, like being a telegrapher or a bookkeeper, did not constitute abetting murder. At that time prosecution had to individually prove the defendant in question had actually carried out acts of killing himself, or be directly involved, like by herding people into the gas-chambers.

That changed 2004 with the trial of John Demjanuk, when it now was held that having been involved at all and keeping the system going was enough. NOT a change of law, only a change of applying it.

In all fairness it can be said that Germany was not too avid to prosecute anyone until 2004, unless they came across some big-wig. Doing it now is a bit controversial, to my mind.

[Saradoc1972]

Gotta move on with all this Auschwitz stuff.

Stick the old hag behind bars until she dies and let's move on.

That'd be fun! There could even be an upside to it in that some of her 17-y-o co-inmates could get vocational training as caregivers in situ.

No, not going to happen. This trial is even more useless than the Gröning case.