Holocaust survivors welcome conviction of Auschwitz guard Reinhold Hanning

[ukrules]

This is how the bookkeeper (Groening) was prosecuted. Prior to the new precedent set in the Demjanjuk case his prosecution would not have been possible.

Demjanjuk and Groening’s cases 'opened the door for more cases,' said Jens Rommel, the chief public prosecutor at The Central Office of the Judicial Authorities for the Investigation of National-Socialist Crimes. Based in Ludwigsburg, Germany, it is the national body in charge of prosecuting these cases. 'You don’t have to prove a determined act that directly leads to a killing,' he said. 'The mere presence, the mere support of the whole system of a [death] camp is punishable.'

A dramatic increase of 320% in the number of convictions of Nazi war criminals obtained during the past year

Source (this is an old report) : http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4442247&ct=5850977

So there are many more prosecutions and subsequent trials coming soon, they're working on it now.

Last years report contains the wanted list : http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=8776547&ct=14583557

This years report (April 2016) mentions this :

During the past 15 years, at least 103 convictions against Nazi war criminals have been obtained, at least 102 new indictments have been filed, and well over 3,600 new investigations have been initiated.

Source : http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=9356941&ct=14848993

3,600 new investigations.....

Edited June 19, 2016 by ukrules

[Morch]

Many more trials are coming, here's why.

For a little background on why this is the case first read this - : http://time.com/4186602/prosecute-last-surviving-nazis/

The precedent was changed and set during the trial of trial of John Demjanjuk not so long ago and the bar to prosecution for a lot of people who worked at these concentration camps was lifted, this activated a number of cases which would not have been possible before. They are ongoing, being planned and in the pre-planning stage.

Demjanjuk’s case was supposed to be the last big Nazi trial in Germany. Instead, it set a precedent that continues to be used to this day, leading to further prosecutions of those who were indirectly involved in the Holocaust, most often as guards assigned to one of the six death camps.

So the law has changed in recent years and there's now people working towards further prosecutions.

From the same link:

4 trials to take place in 2016 (including the OP). 6 cases in investigation stage and 7 in pre-investigaation stage. Hardly "many".

[Morch]

This is how the bookkeeper (Groening) was prosecuted. Prior to the new precedent set in the Demjanjuk case his prosecution would not have been possible.

Demjanjuk and Groening’s cases 'opened the door for more cases,' said Jens Rommel, the chief public prosecutor at The Central Office of the Judicial Authorities for the Investigation of National-Socialist Crimes. Based in Ludwigsburg, Germany, it is the national body in charge of prosecuting these cases. 'You don’t have to prove a determined act that directly leads to a killing,' he said. 'The mere presence, the mere support of the whole system of a [death] camp is punishable.'

A dramatic increase of 320% in the number of convictions of Nazi war criminals obtained during the past year

Source (this is an old report) : http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4442247&ct=5850977

So there are many more prosecutions and subsequent trials coming soon, they're working on it now.

Last years report contains the wanted list : http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=8776547&ct=14583557

This years report (April 2016) mentions this :

During the past 15 years, at least 103 convictions against Nazi war criminals have been obtained, at least 102 new indictments have been filed, and well over 3,600 new investigations have been initiated.

Source : http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=9356941&ct=14848993

3,600 new investigations.....

Hyperbole.

103 convictions in 15 years is considered "many"? Indictments filed are not yet trials, investigations are investigations.

[uptheos]

I don't care how old he is the sentence should be life, though in this case it might be.

It's important that the judge says 'for life'

He must die in prison

Edited June 19, 2016 by uptheos

[dexterm]

Good riddance to him.

"But he admitted he knew what was going on and did nothing to oppose it."

It's good to know there is no statute of limitations on state terrorism, for those who practise it , those who support it and those who do nothing to prevent it.

Edited June 19, 2016 by dexterm

[manfredtillmann]

from a german born with questionable ancestry regarding participation in genocide:

if every participating party in past atrocities had immediately been jailed or killed, how many of us would be posting?

i.e.:

british colonial killings in africa , asia, the pacific islands and australia

german colonial killings in africa and the pacific region

french killings in asia and the pacific islands

belgium involvement in the burundi genocide

dutch creation of apartheid

american eradication of natives and active participation in slavery

the catholic church's crusades and their annihilation of entire civilizations in south america

my education is insufficient to come up with more - but i am sure there are plenty.

my grandfather was on board a german battleship during the boxer revolution in china and during the herero massacre in what is now namibia.

can you account for the where - abouts of your ancestors during any of these historic mass - murders?

right now, while we are discussing stuff that goes back many, many years, a child dies from malnutrition every 10 seconds or so simply because it's parents were prohibited by their 'church' to use contraception.

ok, go ahead, flame me...

[Jingthing]

S.S. guard in a mass extermination camp while not Goebbels is pretty much in the thick of it.

[Andaman Al]

Reinhold Hanning volunteered for service in the SS.

Those feeling sorry for him due to his age, may want to reflect on witnesses attending the trial being as old.

Whether locking him up, at this point and at his age, does anyone any good - I can't say. Not a survivor, and heard differing opinions on that with regard to previous similar cases.

I think what's important here is expressed in this bit:

His hands trembling and his voice shaking, Schwarzbaum looked directly at Hanning and delivered an emotional plea: “Mr Hanning, we are virtually the same age and soon we will face our final judge. I would like to ask you to tell the historical truth here, just as I am. Tell the truth about what you and your colleagues did.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/11/auschwitz-guard-trial-concentration-camp-germany-reinhold-hanning

Well my Great Uncle volunteered for service in the RAF and was a bomber Pilot who took part in the firebombing of Dresden amongst other missions. The Brits and Americans killed over 600 000 innocent German civilians in conventional bombings and if we had lost the war, then by your standards my Great Uncle would have been jailed or hanged for war crimes. Those who write history determine who are the bad guys. Jailing this man does not 'protect society' and at the end of the day, war is a crappy business. I am glad that with two or more 90 year olds to go, the Simon Wiesenthal Investigative teams will soon be out of a job and maybe the world can consign this nasty event to history (it is but one of a thousand such events since man learned you can crack another mans skull with a stone). It is time we allowed the German people to move on.

Your Great Uncle was taking part in a war. Civilian casualties are an accepted, if lamented, fact of modern warfare. In contrast, what took place in the Nazi concentration camps had nothing to do with war, but was outright organized murder and slaughter of civilians.

Sending Hanning to prison is not about "protecting society", and nobody made this claim. It is simply deemed, at least in some countries, that the statute of limitations does not apply for certain offenses. While I agree that sending a 94 years old man to prison is questionable, it bears remembering that those survivors still around are about the same age.

The quote previously linked relates directly to your last lines. Some would like to forget and erase history, some see a value in remembrance.

Interesting to note that Hanning himself seems to be making less excuses for himself, and is willing to accept more responsibility compared with some posters.

This man was 18 years old when he was transferred from the Eastern front to the concentration camps. Barely legal an Adult in todays definition. He never joined the SS knowing of concentration camps. he was an 18 yr old boy doing what all 18 year old boys did in the US and UK he wanted to fight for his country. He chose an 'elite' unit, and he got in. From that point his fate was sealed. If he would have refused his posting he would have been shot as a coward. Thousands of young British men were shot as cowards during both world wars. Please explain to me how a boy of 18 years old is going to refuse orders from a 40 year old Sergeant or Captain. The whole thing is BS and is as bad as the Salem witch trials.

Any Judge worth his or her salt would also question how accurate evidence can be on a personal basis with events carried out 75 years ago. It is ludicrous beyond the extreme. OK with the Doctor Mengele's and his ilk, but an 18 year old private soldier, you have all lost your rationale minds. How about we jail all the US senior government officials that gave immunity to the Japanese Doctors who carried out all the horrific medical experimentation on the Chinese in exchange for the medical data?

As I said before, War is a crappy thing and holding an 18 year old private responsible based on evidence 75 years ago (think about that for a moment with your own memories!) is just plain and utter BS. There has been enough bloodshed and misery in all this. I think a 94 year old man plagued with remorse and nightmares for 75 years who was never involved in the decision making, but forced to take part has done a life sentence already.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Andaman Al

[hawker9000]

As far as I know he didn't physcially murder anybody, maybe he was an accessory to murder, just as countless other Germans might have been. Not sure if he was conscripted or not, but he probably didn't choose his posting. I find it odd that first he's meant to follow orders handed down from the state, and now the state is imprisoning him for having done so. Not sure how the Nazis dealt with conscientious objectors, but can't blame him for not wanting to find out. Still, good way for the state to shift collective guilt.

He was SS. 'Not really known for many "conscientious objectors" in its ranks... So you put "countless other Germans" in the same category with SS?

Unbelievable how this topic has brought holocaust apologists (with the deniers lurking never far away) crawling out of the woodwork with their whiney defenses of these murdering thugs. Oh, wait, he didn't actually drop the pellets. Geez. The ONLY possible injustice here is how long justice took!

[stevenl]

As far as I know he didn't physcially murder anybody, maybe he was an accessory to murder, just as countless other Germans might have been. Not sure if he was conscripted or not, but he probably didn't choose his posting. I find it odd that first he's meant to follow orders handed down from the state, and now the state is imprisoning him for having done so. Not sure how the Nazis dealt with conscientious objectors, but can't blame him for not wanting to find out. Still, good way for the state to shift collective guilt.

He was SS. 'Not really known for many "conscientious objectors" in its ranks... So you put "countless other Germans" in the same category with SS?

Unbelievable how this topic has brought holocaust apologists (with the deniers lurking never far away) crawling out of the woodwork with their whiney defenses of these murdering thugs. Oh, wait, he didn't actually drop the pellets. Geez. The ONLY possible injustice here is how long justice took!

What holocaust apologists?

[JingerBen]

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

[stevenl]

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

[soc]

Good riddance to him.

"But he admitted he knew what was going on and did nothing to oppose it."

It's good to know there is no statute of limitations on state terrorism, for those who practise it , those who support it and those who do nothing to prevent it.

How was an 18 year old private going to "prevent" it.?

lf he'd tried, he would have been shot or gassed.

[JingerBen]

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

[Credo]

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

[JingerBen]

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

Sophistry and hair-splitting for people pushing an agenda.

It is the leaders and instigators that should be tried, not teenagers following orders under threat of death.

All the rest is propaganda of the most despicable kind.

[stevenl]

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

Sophistry and hair-splitting for people pushing an agenda.

It is the leaders and instigators that should be tried, not teenagers following orders under threat of death.

All the rest is propaganda of the most despicable kind.

Yes, agree with your second sentence.

[thaihome]

Germany has not done a good job of prosecuting participants in the holocaust in past. Only about 50 of 6-7,000 personal that were at Auschwitz and survived the war were convicted. It is important that victims, even 70 years later, get their day in court and their stories become part of the legal record. As both the victims and the members of the killing machine die there is a need to make sure this is not forgotten.

http://time.com/nazi-trials

"Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of prosecuting the very elderly. But some experts believe these trials have a moral purpose that goes beyond black-and-white legal responsibility. The optics are not brilliant, obviously, says Lawrence Douglas, a legal scholar at Amherst College who has studied Nazi crimes. But these new trials are considered symbolically important, a way to show that a German legal system that struggled for decades to hold ex-Nazis accountable can finally bring them to justice. As Douglas puts it, It is better late than never. "

[JingerBen]

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

Yeah really, the people of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were free to hide or flee.

[Morch]

Well my Great Uncle volunteered for service in the RAF and was a bomber Pilot who took part in the firebombing of Dresden amongst other missions. The Brits and Americans killed over 600 000 innocent German civilians in conventional bombings and if we had lost the war, then by your standards my Great Uncle would have been jailed or hanged for war crimes. Those who write history determine who are the bad guys. Jailing this man does not 'protect society' and at the end of the day, war is a crappy business. I am glad that with two or more 90 year olds to go, the Simon Wiesenthal Investigative teams will soon be out of a job and maybe the world can consign this nasty event to history (it is but one of a thousand such events since man learned you can crack another mans skull with a stone). It is time we allowed the German people to move on.

Your Great Uncle was taking part in a war. Civilian casualties are an accepted, if lamented, fact of modern warfare. In contrast, what took place in the Nazi concentration camps had nothing to do with war, but was outright organized murder and slaughter of civilians.

Sending Hanning to prison is not about "protecting society", and nobody made this claim. It is simply deemed, at least in some countries, that the statute of limitations does not apply for certain offenses. While I agree that sending a 94 years old man to prison is questionable, it bears remembering that those survivors still around are about the same age.

The quote previously linked relates directly to your last lines. Some would like to forget and erase history, some see a value in remembrance.

Interesting to note that Hanning himself seems to be making less excuses for himself, and is willing to accept more responsibility compared with some posters.

This man was 18 years old when he was transferred from the Eastern front to the concentration camps. Barely legal an Adult in todays definition. He never joined the SS knowing of concentration camps. he was an 18 yr old boy doing what all 18 year old boys did in the US and UK he wanted to fight for his country. He chose an 'elite' unit, and he got in. From that point his fate was sealed. If he would have refused his posting he would have been shot as a coward. Thousands of young British men were shot as cowards during both world wars. Please explain to me how a boy of 18 years old is going to refuse orders from a 40 year old Sergeant or Captain. The whole thing is BS and is as bad as the Salem witch trials.

Any Judge worth his or her salt would also question how accurate evidence can be on a personal basis with events carried out 75 years ago. It is ludicrous beyond the extreme. OK with the Doctor Mengele's and his ilk, but an 18 year old private soldier, you have all lost your rationale minds. How about we jail all the US senior government officials that gave immunity to the Japanese Doctors who carried out all the horrific medical experimentation on the Chinese in exchange for the medical data?

As I said before, War is a crappy thing and holding an 18 year old private responsible based on evidence 75 years ago (think about that for a moment with your own memories!) is just plain and utter BS. There has been enough bloodshed and misery in all this. I think a 94 year old man plagued with remorse and nightmares for 75 years who was never involved in the decision making, but forced to take part has done a life sentence already.

Ah, he didn't know. He wasn't aware. There was no Nazis in power for years before he volunteered.

Hanning himself does not make that many excuses.

So at 18, one is not to be held accountable, fine. How's about 19? 20?....That's another version of the just following orders or being a small cog in the machine.

This was in no way a war situation, it was a concentration camp. People were murdered, not killed as a result of a military action.

Casting doubt on the testimonies is cheap. There's quite a bit of documentation, earlier recorded testimonies and above all - Hanning does not contradict the facts.

"There has been enough bloodshed and misery" - Hanning's blood is not being shed, cut the drama. His misery is no greater than that of the survivors. If he is an old man "plagued by remorse and nightmares" - then surely similar consideration ought to be afforded for them as well? His remorse, by the way, was not so deep as to come forward previously. Concluding that he "done a life sentence already"....yeah, so again, what was life like for survivors, never mind those who didn't make it?

[stevenl]

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

Yeah really, the people of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were free to hide or flee.

Sorry you don't see the difference between purposefully trying to eradicate a whole group of the population and trying to win a war, by all means necessary.

[JingerBen]

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

Yeah really, the people of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were free to hide or flee.

Sorry you don't see the difference between purposefully trying to eradicate a whole group of the population and trying to win a war, by all means necessary.

I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants can't be justified by any argument.

[stevenl]

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

Yeah really, the people of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were free to hide or flee.

Sorry you don't see the difference between purposefully trying to eradicate a whole group of the population and trying to win a war, by all means necessary.

I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants can't be justified by any argument.

Justification for the means used by the allies during the war would be for a different discussion, there have been quite a few about that already.

But here we were talking about differences/comparisons. Would you write the same sentence you wrote earlier but with 'difference' in stead of 'justification', so something like this "I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants is no different by any argument." with regards to the holocaust and bombarding cities like Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[JingerBen]

Sorry you don't see the difference between purposefully trying to eradicate a whole group of the population and trying to win a war, by all means necessary.

I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants can't be justified by any argument.

Justification for the means used by the allies during the war would be for a different discussion, there have been quite a few about that already.

But here we were talking about differences/comparisons. Would you write the same sentence you wrote earlier but with 'difference' in stead of 'justification', so something like this "I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants is no different by any argument." with regards to the holocaust and bombarding cities like Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You'd make a great lawyer, Steve.

That is, if you're not one already.

As a native New Yorker I grew up among shysters - there are a few in my family, actually - so I know how they operate.

Edited June 20, 2016 by JingerBen

[stevenl]

Sorry you don't see the difference between purposefully trying to eradicate a whole group of the population and trying to win a war, by all means necessary.

I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants can't be justified by any argument.

Justification for the means used by the allies during the war would be for a different discussion, there have been quite a few about that already.

But here we were talking about differences/comparisons. Would you write the same sentence you wrote earlier but with 'difference' in stead of 'justification', so something like this "I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants is no different by any argument." with regards to the holocaust and bombarding cities like Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You'd make a great lawyer, Steve.

That is, if you're not one already.

As a native New Yorker I grew up among shysters - there are a few in my family, actually - so I know how they operate.

Thanks, no answer is an answer as well.

[taotoo]

As far as I know he didn't physcially murder anybody, maybe he was an accessory to murder, just as countless other Germans might have been. Not sure if he was conscripted or not, but he probably didn't choose his posting. I find it odd that first he's meant to follow orders handed down from the state, and now the state is imprisoning him for having done so. Not sure how the Nazis dealt with conscientious objectors, but can't blame him for not wanting to find out. Still, good way for the state to shift collective guilt.

He was SS. 'Not really known for many "conscientious objectors" in its ranks... So you put "countless other Germans" in the same category with SS?

Unbelievable how this topic has brought holocaust apologists (with the deniers lurking never far away) crawling out of the woodwork with their whiney defenses of these murdering thugs. Oh, wait, he didn't actually drop the pellets. Geez. The ONLY possible injustice here is how long justice took!

Your first point: I would use the same argument as the post immediately above your own.

Your second point: How dare you call me a holocaust apologist or denier. Retract it.

[Jingthing]

I have found the TONE of some of the posts here suggesting it's not a good idea to go after Nazis as the one in the O.P. to be gingerly dancing with diminishing the specific level of genocidal evil of the holocaust but I don't think there was any explicit holocaust denial. Not that that's at all unheard of on this forum.

[Andaman Al]

Your Great Uncle was taking part in a war. Civilian casualties are an accepted, if lamented, fact of modern warfare. In contrast, what took place in the Nazi concentration camps had nothing to do with war, but was outright organized murder and slaughter of civilians.

Sending Hanning to prison is not about "protecting society", and nobody made this claim. It is simply deemed, at least in some countries, that the statute of limitations does not apply for certain offenses. While I agree that sending a 94 years old man to prison is questionable, it bears remembering that those survivors still around are about the same age.

The quote previously linked relates directly to your last lines. Some would like to forget and erase history, some see a value in remembrance.

Interesting to note that Hanning himself seems to be making less excuses for himself, and is willing to accept more responsibility compared with some posters.

This man was 18 years old when he was transferred from the Eastern front to the concentration camps. Barely legal an Adult in todays definition. He never joined the SS knowing of concentration camps. he was an 18 yr old boy doing what all 18 year old boys did in the US and UK he wanted to fight for his country. He chose an 'elite' unit, and he got in. From that point his fate was sealed. If he would have refused his posting he would have been shot as a coward. Thousands of young British men were shot as cowards during both world wars. Please explain to me how a boy of 18 years old is going to refuse orders from a 40 year old Sergeant or Captain. The whole thing is BS and is as bad as the Salem witch trials.

Any Judge worth his or her salt would also question how accurate evidence can be on a personal basis with events carried out 75 years ago. It is ludicrous beyond the extreme. OK with the Doctor Mengele's and his ilk, but an 18 year old private soldier, you have all lost your rationale minds. How about we jail all the US senior government officials that gave immunity to the Japanese Doctors who carried out all the horrific medical experimentation on the Chinese in exchange for the medical data?

As I said before, War is a crappy thing and holding an 18 year old private responsible based on evidence 75 years ago (think about that for a moment with your own memories!) is just plain and utter BS. There has been enough bloodshed and misery in all this. I think a 94 year old man plagued with remorse and nightmares for 75 years who was never involved in the decision making, but forced to take part has done a life sentence already.

Ah, he didn't know. He wasn't aware. There was no Nazis in power for years before he volunteered.

Hanning himself does not make that many excuses.

So at 18, one is not to be held accountable, fine. How's about 19? 20?....That's another version of the just following orders or being a small cog in the machine.

This was in no way a war situation, it was a concentration camp. People were murdered, not killed as a result of a military action.

Casting doubt on the testimonies is cheap. There's quite a bit of documentation, earlier recorded testimonies and above all - Hanning does not contradict the facts.

"There has been enough bloodshed and misery" - Hanning's blood is not being shed, cut the drama. His misery is no greater than that of the survivors. If he is an old man "plagued by remorse and nightmares" - then surely similar consideration ought to be afforded for them as well? His remorse, by the way, was not so deep as to come forward previously. Concluding that he "done a life sentence already"....yeah, so again, what was life like for survivors, never mind those who didn't make it?

Well isn't it nice to have a PhD in Hindsight !

So how would you rate a young American graduate who wants to volunteer for the CIA ? Is that an OK occupation or would he be condemned for joining another extremely evil organisation, maybe you forgive them their dreadful sins because they do it all in your name.

Regardless of what this man thought on reflection later in life, I do not believe he was guilty of anything when he joined the SS at age 18 other than his own version of patriotism. He is not responsible for what the Nazi command did, and the USA let plenty of senior Nazi commanders off the hook, even providing new identities, just for the exchange of information.

[manfredtillmann]

let me give you a completely hypothetical scenario:

in a few months time americans will elect a president viewed as the saviour, the one who all his followers believe in, who will change the lifes of all blue - collar minions, who will make all those strugglers be wealthy, evict parasitic blow-in's taking away american jobs, tell the overseas critics to get lost... you know, what i am talking about, aren't you? sounds like hitler???

and than he follows through, starts a war with his mexican neighbors because they do not want to pay for the wall, than rounds up all the muslims in his country and puts them in internment camps because they are enemies of the state. after the camps have been filled and he runs out of money he needs to find a new (final) solution.

in the meantime he tells the chinese and their north korean allies that american nuclear bombs are just so much better. and than shows them how much better they are...

and how many of the supporters of this imaginary president will later be held responsible for the annihilation of mankind?

[Jingthing]

Silly deflection.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Jingthing