Trial of SS medic who served at Auschwitz begins in Germany

[Baerboxer]

10 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The court is giving this guy a lot more consideration than he ever gave those poor prisoners.

 

I agree with that.

 

But what I find poor is the same lack of enthusiasm for punishing Japanese war criminals. Or those who committed crimes on the Allied side. Crimes committed in the Korean and Vietnam war have been nicely swept under carpets until "secret" documents have become public.

 

I guess people like Simon Wiesenthal and his center were prepared to devote their lives to bringing these criminals to justice. Had it been left to governments and the "authorities" then I doubt so many SS criminals would have been brought to justice. 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

 

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem might have argued otherwise.

 

Muslims in Bosnia / Serbia / Croatia who served in the Axis military might argue otherwise too.

[bark]

3 hours ago, Humberstone said:

 

You must be Russian then ?

You must be wasting my time.

[Lopchan]

10 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

There is usually no statute of limitations for MURDER and there shouldn't be. This old Nazi deserves no mercy.

I agree 100% so lets bring to a war crimes trial and impose the death penalty on the leaders of the Mai Lai massacre also

[Scotwight]

8 hours ago, Fookhaht said:

"...pass on ALL their misdeeds?"  

You are embarrassingly ignorant of the history of the USA occupation of Japan and the highly-publicized war crime trials of Japanese who were tried because they instigated or contributed to the war effort.  Most were subsequently executed.   The Japanese emperor, Hirohito, was spared only because he agreed with General MacArthur to be the poster-boy for cooperating with the occupying forces.  

There were simply too many Japanese war crimes to investigate; incriminating records had been deliberately destroyed; investigators had to rely on hostile Japanese police and government officials to locate suspects and witnesses; and there were too few investigators and prosecutors. When the United States decided in 1948 to halt the war crimes prosecutions, some of Japan's worst war criminals were able to emerge from hiding and escape justice.

 

The decision to halt the prosecutions was entirely based on political expediency. It had nothing to do with issues of legality, morality, or humanity.

 

Unlike Germany where intensive de-Nazification procedures were employed to prevent former Nazis entering parliament and the bureaucracy, the United States allowed Japanese war criminals to enter parliament and find employment in the government bureaucracy. 

 

It has been estimated by the US Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations that at least several thousand Japanese escaped prosecution as a result of the premature termination of war crime prosecutions by the United States in 1949.

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrimes/USWarCrime_Coverup.html

 

 

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, bark said:

Sorry dude, but I guess you don't know anyone who died fighting in WW2.

I guess you are ok, that this persons actions ?

If it wasn't for our parents, uncles, grand parents; you would be speaking German.

I guess you also do not stand up, for your home country.

I guess you must be from France.

 

If I replied as I would like I would be suspended

 

I am British but I speak German fluently

 

What has your point to do with my view that justice should prevail and that means a fair trial

 

Where are you from pray?

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, Lopchan said:

I agree 100% so lets bring to a war crimes trial and impose the death penalty on the leaders of the Mai Lai massacre also

 

This is not about the death  penalty, it is about being criminally charged. 26 soldiers at My Lai were subsequently charged so there is no issue of statute of limitations to argue.

[DaddyWarbucks]

...charged and set free not long afterwards.

[SheungWan]

29 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

...charged and set free not long afterwards.

 

This thread is also not about the outcome, it is about whether the individual concerned should be prosecuted and in the case of My Lai they were, so a bogus historical example to bring up.

[DaddyWarbucks]

Lame response.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, Scotwight said:

There were simply too many Japanese war crimes to investigate; incriminating records had been deliberately destroyed; investigators had to rely on hostile Japanese police and government officials to locate suspects and witnesses; and there were too few investigators and prosecutors. When the United States decided in 1948 to halt the war crimes prosecutions, some of Japan's worst war criminals were able to emerge from hiding and escape justice.

 

The decision to halt the prosecutions was entirely based on political expediency. It had nothing to do with issues of legality, morality, or humanity.

 

Unlike Germany where intensive de-Nazification procedures were employed to prevent former Nazis entering parliament and the bureaucracy, the United States allowed Japanese war criminals to enter parliament and find employment in the government bureaucracy. 

 

It has been estimated by the US Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations that at least several thousand Japanese escaped prosecution as a result of the premature termination of war crime prosecutions by the United States in 1949.

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrimes/USWarCrime_Coverup.html

 

 

 

Spot on. One interesting point to note re the second paragraph is that whenever the continuing issue of Nazi war criminal prosecutions comes up, there are always those who oppose as such for political reasons (extreme right, neo-Nazis, etc) but hide their objections behind a smokescreen of claimed legality, morality, humanity etc. When that fails, then there is the recourse to 'whataboutism'. Whatabout this, whatabout that historical comparison in a last effort to kick the matter into a relativist dust.

[khunken]

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Spot on. One interesting point to note re the second paragraph is that whenever the continuing issue of Nazi war criminal prosecutions comes up, there are always those who oppose as such for political reasons (extreme right, neo-Nazis, etc) but hide their objections behind a smokescreen of claimed legality, morality, humanity etc. When that fails, then there is the recourse to 'whataboutism'. Whatabout this, whatabout that historical comparison in a last effort to kick the matter into a relativist dust.

Oh yes and the whatabout the Mufti of Jerusalem falls into that category. But that's ok because it's 'only' neo-Islamophobia which tends to have a lot in common with neo-Nazism.

But who am I in a thread that seems to have been taken over by a self-appointed mod?

 

[tonray]

"The Trump team was disappointed at the news as they had been vetting him for the position of Surgeon General should Donald win the presidency"

[SheungWan]

12 minutes ago, khunken said:

Oh yes and the whatabout the Mufti of Jerusalem falls into that category. But that's ok because it's 'only' neo-Islamophobia which tends to have a lot in common with neo-Nazism.

But who am I in a thread that seems to have been taken over by a self-appointed mod?

 

 

The example of the Mufti of Jerusalem was not brought up as a completely different historical event to compare with the Nazi period. The Mufti of Jerusalem was a part of the Nazi period and mentioned in direct response to an observation that the Islamic religion had no connection to the Nazis. What I should have added re historical comparisons so far referred to namely Maoism and My Lai is that those who have tried to, have got them both spectacularly wrong as far as this thread is concerned namely one of whether to prosecute or not an alleged war crime. The name of the game with extreme right-wing historical revisionism is always to kick the Nazi period into the long grass. Stop the prosecution is always their wish.

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I agree with that.

 

But what I find poor is the same lack of enthusiasm for punishing Japanese war criminals. Or those who committed crimes on the Allied side. Crimes committed in the Korean and Vietnam war have been nicely swept under carpets until "secret" documents have become public.

 

 

IMO, That is all about GENOCIDE. The Nazis were the only ones trying to wipe out a whole race. Therefore, they are a special case.

[jhonnie]

21 hours ago, jaidam said:

Surely this must have passed a statute of limitations? Whatever crimes this man may or may not have had some peripheral involvement with occurred over 70 years ago. Talk about bearing a grudge, let's just let this old guy live out his last days with the miminal of stressful intrusion by media and judicial forces. The time to act was of course 70 odd years ago.

 The guys alledged crimes are of even less significance in modern times, where depending on your ideological viewpoint, mass murder is easily justified so long as the murdered do not share the same vile ideology. Why would one murder be PC and justified and another deemed evil worth hounding the guy for 70 years over. I don't get it. All murder is bad, or none is bad, not some is OK depending on faith bla bla.

no statute on war crimes, can't  really give him life imprisonment so probably should hang him as soon as possible

[hawker9000]

21 hours ago, car720 said:

Hitler killed 6  million whilst Mao killed 45 million yet we seldom hear a word about this.  The Chinese people have moved on.

Just saying...................perhaps it is time the rest of the world also moved on.

 

Also I cannot help wonder what profession the prosecutors will pursue when all the nazis are gone.

 

Good question.  I for one would think they could be gainfully employed pursuing all modern-day after-the-fact sympathizers.  No shortage of 'em right here on TV.  Naah.  Bad idea.  We need them to show decent people that Naziism is still breathing.  Yes - the world SHOULD move on, with a SOLID understanding of Nazi atrocities and a determination to punish those responsible for those atrocities, for which age is simply not a defense.

 

Yeah.  A statute of limitations on attempted genocide.  What a concept...   <sigh>  Some people just have to experience these horrors for themselves before they get it.   The slowest of the slow learners. 

 

As for Mao, I'd have held him & Stalin & Tojo, and all their flunkies and hangers-on, just as responsible for their atrocities as Hitler.

 

"The Chinese people have moved on."  LOL   Yeah.  Most despots find that's fairly easy to make them do at gunpoint...  And BTW, 'not sure it can be said that the Chinese on Taiwan have "moved on".

 

 

 

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

I think this is a huge waste of tax payers dollars by having his trial 71 years later. Also having to drag it on due to his health issues and not being able to be in court all day. Practically have to strap him into a life support machine and wheel him in on a wheel chair just to hear the charges against him. 

 

I could understand it if he was a Big Player like they just caught the Angel of Death, or also known as Doctor Death Josef Mengele, but a SS Medic? What power did he have other than doing what he was told to do by a Superior or a Doctor? They really had to dig deep in the barrow to pull this one out.

 

Where are you going to find any witness still alive who can testify against him anyway? If they placed him on the Stand, would his answers of being "I am sorry I don't know, as I can't remember now", an unreasonable answer from a 95 Year Old Man who is being asked what happened 71 years ago? I don't think so! 

 

Even if you find him guilty, what are you going to do with him next? Give him Life in Prison, which in his case may add up to 6 months in a Medical Facility? Or send him to the Gallows and build a special trap door which can accommodate a man in a wheel chair when it opens?

 

Just a total waste of time and money at this stage of the game I think.  

[dick dasterdly]

Surely it depends on whether this man was directing the atrocities, or a man who had no choice?

 

I know that orders are often followed with enthusiasm, which IMO should also result in a conviction - but this thread provides no information either way.

 

Being a member of the SS doesn't exactly help his cause..... but even so, personally I'd be far more interested in whether he has previously (before authorities found him) indicated regret at his decision to join the SS decades ago.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I think this is a huge waste of tax payers dollars by having his trial 71 years later. Also having to drag it on due to his health issues and not being able to be in court all day. Practically have to strap him into a life support machine and wheel him in on a wheel chair just to hear the charges against him. 

 

I could understand it if he was a Big Player like they just caught the Angel of Death, or also known as Doctor Death Josef Mengele, but a SS Medic? What power did he have other than doing what he was told to do by a Superior or a Doctor? They really had to dig deep in the barrow to pull this one out.

 

Where are you going to find any witness still alive who can testify against him anyway? If they placed him on the Stand, would his answers of being "I am sorry I don't know, as I can't remember now", an unreasonable answer from a 95 Year Old Man who is being asked what happened 71 years ago? I don't think so! 

 

Even if you find him guilty, what are you going to do with him next? Give him Life in Prison, which in his case may add up to 6 months in a Medical Facility? Or send him to the Gallows and build a special trap door which can accommodate a man in a wheel chair when it opens?

 

Just a total waste of time and money at this stage of the game I think.  

 

There are still witnesses around. Not for many years though. Some his age, some younger. They deserve to be heard as well. One of the issues with this trial, I think, was judge decisions regarding calling forth witnesses. The "Big Players" would have been somewhat older than this guy, hence all gone.

 

The accused acknowledged the allegations, so dunno about him having memory issues. Guess these sort of things don't go away so easy, whatever side one was one. The "just following orders" defense is not readily acceptable in most cases. At best, it can mitigate sentencing. IMO, the locus of the trial is not necessarily the punishment, but the acknowledgment of wrongdoing and re-telling of testimonies. But guess some survivors may see it otherwise.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

57 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Surely it depends on whether this man was directing the atrocities, or a man who had no choice?

 

I know that orders are often followed with enthusiasm, which IMO should also result in a conviction - but this thread provides no information either way.

 

Being a member of the SS doesn't exactly help his cause..... but even so, personally I'd be far more interested in whether he has previously (before authorities found him) indicated regret at his decision to join the SS decades ago.

 

He was a member of the Hitler Youth, and volunteered for service in the SS. 

Doubt that claims of following orders (with or without enthusiasm) could absolve him. 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Morch said:

 

There are still witnesses around. Not for many years though. Some his age, some younger. They deserve to be heard as well. One of the issues with this trial, I think, was judge decisions regarding calling forth witnesses. The "Big Player" would have been somewhat older than this guy, hence all gone.

 

The accused acknowledged the allegations, so dunno about him having memory issues. Guess these sort of things don't go away so easy, whatever side one was one. The "just following orders" defense is not readily acceptable in most cases. At best, it can mitigate sentencing. IMO, the locus of the trial is not necessarily the punishment, but the acknowledgment of wrongdoing and re-telling of testimonies. But guess some survivors may see it otherwise.

 

 

I'm not sure from your post whether you're arguing that the accused is guilty of 'following orders' or agreeing with what happened and therefore more complicit?

[Jingthing]

 

IMO, That is all about GENOCIDE. The Nazis were the only ones trying to wipe out a whole race. Therefore, they are a special case.

Yep. The Nazis managed to murder about half the Jews the world and the majority of European Jewry. Of course short of their goal of the final solution.

To murder half the Chinese. That's an unthinkable number.

Just about now Jews are back to their pre holocaust population levels.

Of course Jews are not technically a race but that's how the Nazis saw it.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not sure from your post whether you're arguing that the accused is guilty of 'following orders' or agreeing with what happened and therefore more complicit?

 

I'm not sure that I have a definite opinion on the case.

 

He was following orders, that's for sure. In general, the just-following-orders thing does not seem to be a valid get-out-of-jail card. More often used to mitigate consequences - reduced responsibility, more lenient sentence. In the same way, the question of how emphatically he followed these orders does not, perhaps, apply that much to guilt, but to the severity of the legal outcome.

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

He was a member of the Hitler Youth, and volunteered for service in the SS. 

Doubt that claims of following orders (with or without enthusiasm) could absolve him. 

We have entirely different perspectives as I wouldn't be at all suprised if in a few years time (for example) the Americans and Brits declared war on all moslems -  and quite a few people (incapable of thinking things out for themselves) agreed that all moslems should be exterminated and thereby became the equivalent of the SS.

 

It happened decades ago in Germany (and has happened since in other countries) - which is why I'm only concerned about those leading the atrocities that happened decades ago.

 

Stating that he was a member of Hitler Youth, only reinforces that he was an unthinking child - caught up in the typical teenage nationalistic pride.....

[dick dasterdly]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yep. The Nazis managed to murder about half the Jews the world and the majority of European Jewry. Of course short of their goal of the final solution.

To murder half the Chinese. That's an unthinkable number.

Just about now Jews are back to their pre holocaust population levels.

Of course Jews are not technically a race but that's how the Nazis saw it.

Do you care about the mentally ill, religious people, disabled people, just different nationalities that were also murdered?

[dick dasterdly]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not sure that I have a definite opinion on the case.

 

He was following orders, that's for sure. In general, the just-following-orders thing does not seem to be a valid get-out-of-jail card. More often used to mitigate consequences - reduced responsibility, more lenient sentence. In the same way, the question of how emphatically he followed these orders does not, perhaps, apply that much to guilt, but to the severity of the legal outcome.

The 'following orders' thing works just fine - as long as you're on the winning side.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

We have entirely different perspectives as I wouldn't be at all suprised if in a few years time (for example) the Americans and Brits declared war on all moslems -  and quite a few people (incapable of thinking things out for themselves) agreed that all moslems should be exterminated and thereby became the equivalent of the SS.

 

It happened decades ago in Germany (and has happened since in other countries) - which is why I'm only concerned about those leading the atrocities that happened decades ago.

 

Stating that he was a member of Hitler Youth, only reinforces that he was an unthinking child - caught up in the typical teenage nationalistic pride.....

 

Wild fantasies are not a perspective.

 

What was the point of raising a question with regard to how emphatically he followed orders, then? You'd simply pull the brainwashed kid card.

 

Ok, he was a child. He's innocent. In fact, he's a victim as well.

[NickJ]

Just whisper in his ear that everyone he has ever befriended were burned alive last night by vigilantes.  Even though they weren't 

[SheungWan]

15 hours ago, jhonnie said:

no statute on war crimes, can't  really give him life imprisonment so probably should hang him as soon as possible

 

Appropriate punishment is again not the issue. Prosecution is. And to suggest that imprisonment is not an option has no logic to it other than for those who would argue that since capital punishment is the only punishment, prosecution should be avoided. Piffle on both counts.