Trial of SS medic who served at Auschwitz begins in Germany

[Naam]

Quote

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with section 26 preventing the application of retroactive penalties.

case closed!

[Naam]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

They were just kids wrapped up in some Nazi Ideology! It wasn't just the Hitler Youth Group that taught Racism and hatred towards Jews. It was taught at home from their families, from their friends, and in the schools, and on the streets, and printed daily in the media, from newspapers to advertisement poster on every street corner, from the writing on Jewish Shop Windows. Racism was part of the German Culture and Society at that time, so it was everywhere then. 

 

So keeping your kid out of the Hitler Youth Organization would have done little to nothing in preventing your kids from learning about this Racism someplace else. Especially if you were as wrapped up in this belief yourself, and like most Germans were at that time. If you were not on the Band Wagon then, you may find yourself in trouble by having your own children reporting you to the SS for being a bad parent. 

 

Easy for all to say now they would never do that, when they have nothing to lose now or lived in those times in Germany. Where you couldn't not even hold a Government Job if you didn't support the Nazi Party, or get promoted in your job, or even get sacked from your job, with little hope of finding another. Without having those papers to say your were a Nazi it was very difficult to even get a job anywhere. 

 

No! You probably wouldn't be put in a Concentration Camp along side the Jews, if you were a German Solder and refused to take orders. You might get shot for this. Or sent to the Russian Front, which is probably just as bad.

 

Every one has Morals! But very few have the Guts to back them up when it is their life they are talking about, and not somebody else's.   

 

i like your comment but it's the proverbial "pearls before... ignorants wearing blinkers."

[SheungWan]

12 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

I am not surprised you would attempt a defense of this SS volunteer.   Your comment fails to mention that the statute of limitations  on Nazi era war crimes, with the exception of murder was indeed 1968.   Why not provide the full historical record? Pertinent facts like;

- Despite the removal of some key Nazi jurists following the war,  many of the  nazi appointed jurists who had been relieved of their  duties by the allies between 1945 and 1950, were back at work by 1951.

- The allied occupation only dealt with the most egregious of Nazi era laws. Many of the legal practices that were common during the nazi era continued.

- The undeniable fact is that Germany intentionally avoided bringing many of its nazis to trial during the 1950-1970 period. There was an intentional cover up at the political leadership level and the clock was intentionally run out.  Your generation in particular  didn't want to know about the nazis or hear about what they did. That changed when people born after 1960 learnt about their history and were disgusted by the nazi era and the generation born in 1930-1959 who denied what occurred, and who  covered up the  crimes. Unlike your generation, younger Germans didn't want the blood money either.      

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Naam said:

yawn... bring on the clowns and their accusations

 

2 hours ago, Naam said:

case closed!

2 hours ago, Naam said:

case closed!

 

When it comes to clowns your contributions have to be one of the first in the queue. In 1968 the United Nations General assembly called a Convention On the Non-Applicability Of Statutory Limitations To War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity. The Convention provides that no signatory state may apply statutory limitations to War Crimes as they are defined in the Charter of the Nurnberg International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945.

http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cnslwcch/cnslwcch.html

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by SheungWan

[SheungWan]

Germany is where the current prosecution is taking place and is a signatory of the Convention cited above.

Edited September 15, 2016 by SheungWan

[Morch]

14 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Since most kids were taken straight to the Gas Chamber when they got off the train, not many would have survived the Concentration Camp. Unless of course Twins, which even then this number would be very low. Since this took place over 71 years ago then who ever the witness is he would have to be close to 90 years old by now, at least. 

 

The accused understood that he was being charged for a crime. That doesn't mean he understood why he was charged or what he did to deserve this charge.

 

I honestly don't know what it is like to try and remember back 71 years ago if I was 95 years old. Do you? All I can say is that many people his age can''t remember the name of their wife of 60 years, or there own kids names or faces, so if they can forget that then they can forget anything, 

 

I have personally met and heard accounts from such survivors. Apparently not the sort of thing someone forgets.

 

Like many others on this topic, your posts focus on considering the human condition of the accused. There is very little by way of extending the same sentiment to survivors and their families.

 

As far as I understand, up until the time of the legal proceedings, the accused did not exhibit extraordinary cognitive difficulties associated with old age. If he was unable to acknowledge the charges, the whole thing would have been scraped.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Hitler Youth Party? That started back in 1922 but really took off from the years 1933 to 1945. Long before the war. It was outlawed in 1945 as it was considered Racist, which it was, but so where the times in Germany then to. 

 

Joining that in Germany then is no worst than your son or daughter joining Army Cadets, or Sea and Air Cadets now. They learnt some skills and discipline, played sports, and got to go on summer camps and trips. They were taught Racism, but I don't know how much choice a child had back then anyway.

 

But by then hatred for the Jews was well underway and if you didn't learn it at the Hitler Youth, you would learn it at home. I do know that the Russians forced Polish Kids to learn Russian in school, and sing Communist Songs, but that didn't make them Communists either. They just did what they were told to do to stay out of trouble.  

 

You didn't really volunteer for service in the SS, although I am sure many tried to do this, as the SS was the Elite Group, and far superior over anything group in the army. Only the best could be in the SS so only the best were selected to join. It would have been a common goal for most German Men who were entering the army, to be selected by them. Being in the SS didn't make you an automatic murderer. Many worked in Offices and as Doctors to. For many it was just a way to get a better job. 

 

Yes, he was in the SS, but as a Medic his power was very limited. He wouldn't even treat Concentration Camp Prisoners, as they have there own Jewish Doctors and Nurses for that. It would have been far below his pay scale to treat a Jewish Prisoner. So at the Camp he main duties was that of a Male Nurse to the German Soldiers and Officers, and their Families.

 

However, as a Medic he may have been called upon on standby duty to attend some of the gassing. They were after all working with Dangerous Chemical Weapons, and they may have been needed there on standby in case one of the German Solders or Officers got hurt. But I am sure he did not decide when and how to do this, and who lived or died, or anything else like that. He was there for the Guards Safety only.  

 

Yes, it can be argued he had a choice, which I don't know is true or not. I suppose he could have given up his cushy job with a warm bed and 3 meals a day in the Concentration Camp. In which he did not have to pull the trigger or decides who lives or dies. Then after that, being replaced and sent to the Russian Front, where many German Solders were dying like flies, with many from hunger and freezing to death. As no doubt they needed all the Medics they could find then.

 

But if you call that a choice then it sure isn't much of one to make for anyone.    

 

That's a whole lot of words in defense of a man who participated in mass murder and genocide.

 

The post you quoted was merely a reply as to a question regarding his supposed enthusiasm in carrying out his orders. IMO, the question is not germane to the issue, and answers will remain speculative.

 

Most of the "defense" outlined above relates environmental, psychological and social arguments in order to support a thesis of diminished responsibility. A lot of it is conjecture - and would remain so unless the case goes on trial.

 

I don't think anyone claims he was a decision maker, or the vilest of the vile. That said, he did take part in some horrible things. There is a stage where just-following-orders is not a good enough explanation. There is no instant absolution for Individuals caving in under peer pressure. There could be an understanding of how a man comes to participate in such atrocities, but this does not necessarily denote forgiveness or acquittal. Such understanding could, and probably will, be relevant to sentencing and punishment.

 

For all of the "no choice" arguments, here's this - not all the Germans were Nazis, not all the Germans actively participated in the horrors carried out by the Nazis. Some Germans opposed it, worked against it - sometimes at great personal cost. There is always a choice. True enough, people often take the easier route. Guess that there's a fine line there too.

 

[Morch]

Deleted.

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

13 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I hope that the emboldened part of my original post (above) makes it clear that I had no intention of pulling the "brainwashed kid card" - as personally I don't consider that enough to absolve the leaders (and lower ranking staff that were happy to commit atrocities) being held accountable for the horrors for which they were responsible.

 

I do however, have some sympathy for those who reluctantly followed orders to save their own lives.  As another poster pointed out, I'm sure we all hope that we would behave better in those circumstances - but fear that we wouldn't.....

 

Even Jewish prisoners were involved in some aspects of the concentration camp horrors (I gather - but perhaps I'm wrong?), knowing that they would also be killed if they refused to do as they were told.

 

I think it quite telling that you would attempt to draw moral parallels between Jewish prisoners of the Nazis and the SS personnel at the camps.

 

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I like your Phase "D-list" as in my point of view this is what it is. I can't wait until they get further down their list and start arresting 95 Year Old Train Engineers who drove these trains that carried all these Jewish Prisoners to these Death Camps and to their certain death.

 

Like many here, I wont lose any sleep over this 95 year old Medic being arrested for War Crimes. It just seems ridiculous to me and an extra big expense and waste of money after all this time. For a Big Fish then sure! But for a Camp Medic?  

 

Many wouldn't lose sleep over it, fair enough.

Guess somewhat different with regard to some survivors and their families.

[geriatrickid]

12 hours ago, Naam said:

yawn... bring on the clowns and their accusations

 

Not an accusation. You have mounted a defense of a Nazi.. Not surprising for your those of your generation and not surprising you do not live in Germany as most Germans under the age of 40 would be disgusted by your  views. Although the clock is running out to bring the nazi thugs to justice,  it is also running out on the generation of Germans who refused to accept responsibility for the atrocities and who have spent their lifetimes blaming everyone else for what happened.   It's ok.. Soon the world will be rid of the direct descendants of the  nazis who profited from the theft and looting of the free world and who owe their existence to the compassion and generosity of their victims and the  Allies.  The Russians had a different   view though.

 

12 hours ago, Naam said:

just a few examples. the list ist looooong!

 

None of which are applicable to a war criminal and one who avoided justice.

How many times does it have to be explained to you that if one engages in war crimes and is then protected by the negligence of the state and  shielded by his own country, the defense you claim do not hold.

 

12 hours ago, Naam said:

case closed!

 

You wish.  The Human Rights Convention as an avenue of excuse or reason for non prosecution  does not apply to war criminals seeking to avoid criminal proceedings. The only thing closed here is you. You refuse to consider the fact that this is a nazi, a member of the SS. He was not some misguided child, but was an adult when he joined the SS. It was 1944, and he knew the war was lost, but aided and abetted the genocide.

 

What's next, your excusing of the murders of multiple allied airmen? The people you defend regularly tortured and executed RAF, RAAF, USAAF, RCAF air crews. Polish aircrews serving in the RAF were typically killed upon capture. The man you so vigorously defend participated in the murder of non combatants, of civilians who had  no role in the war. That's what you defend. 

Shameful position, but you probably extract great delight at the offense you cause and of the delight of supporting a nazi murderer.  Tell your neighbors. hangout some banners from your home. Let everyone know. Maybe you can even pay homage by flying the SS flag at your home and marching with the twits of Thailand  who like to dress up as Nazis.  You can goose step  down walking street, Pattay and  raise money for this man's defense.

 

[xineohp]

37 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

Not an accusation. You have mounted a defense of a Nazi.. Not surprising for your those of your generation and not surprising you do not live in Germany as most Germans under the age of 40 would be disgusted by your  views. Although the clock is running out to bring the nazi thugs to justice,  it is also running out on the generation of Germans who refused to accept responsibility for the atrocities and who have spent their lifetimes blaming everyone else for what happened.   It's ok.. Soon the world will be rid of the direct descendants of the  nazis who profited from the theft and looting of the free world and who owe their existence to the compassion and generosity of their victims and the  Allies.  The Russians had a different   view though.

 

 

None of which are applicable to a war criminal and one who avoided justice.

How many times does it have to be explained to you that if one engages in war crimes and is then protected by the negligence of the state and  shielded by his own country, the defense you claim do not hold.

 

 

You wish.  The Human Rights Convention as an avenue of excuse or reason for non prosecution  does not apply to war criminals seeking to avoid criminal proceedings. The only thing closed here is you. You refuse to consider the fact that this is a nazi, a member of the SS. He was not some misguided child, but was an adult when he joined the SS. It was 1944, and he knew the war was lost, but aided and abetted the genocide.

 

What's next, your excusing of the murders of multiple allied airmen? The people you defend regularly tortured and executed RAF, RAAF, USAAF, RCAF air crews. Polish aircrews serving in the RAF were typically killed upon capture. The man you so vigorously defend participated in the murder of non combatants, of civilians who had  no role in the war. That's what you defend. 

Shameful position, but you probably extract great delight at the offense you cause and of the delight of supporting a nazi murderer.  Tell your neighbors. hangout some banners from your home. Let everyone know. Maybe you can even pay homage by flying the SS flag at your home and marching with the twits of Thailand  who like to dress up as Nazis.  You can goose step  down walking street, Pattay and  raise money for this man's defense.

 

True or false, guilty or innocent, the bigotted rants from both sides in this discussion reinforce ones belief that the quicker those concerned die out the better. Then perhaps the world can move on.

[GOLDBUGGY]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I have personally met and heard accounts from such survivors. Apparently not the sort of thing someone forgets.

 

Like many others on this topic, your posts focus on considering the human condition of the accused. There is very little by way of extending the same sentiment to survivors and their families.

 

As far as I understand, up until the time of the legal proceedings, the accused did not exhibit extraordinary cognitive difficulties associated with old age. If he was unable to acknowledge the charges, the whole thing would have been scraped.

 

 

 

 

I wish some poster would read the Subject Topic from beginning to end before they post their assessment.

 

How can you say he did not exhibit extraordinary difficulties associated with his old age? Do you base this on just your own opinion and what some Suicidal Old Man in a Wheel Chair says and who answers one question with the word "Yes"? Does this mean to you he is of sound mind and body because he nods his head or opens his mouth?

 

Or is it what the Judge thinks and Doctor says in Court Documents and Proceedings after a thorough examination of the Accused? You can get a Trained Monkey to push the "Yes Button" to get a Banana, but that doesn't mean he would fully understand the extent of the crime or charges brought against him. The Post said:

 

"Court had been postponed three times after presiding Judge Klaus Kabisch determined Zafke wasn't well enough to participate, based on a doctor's assessment. Among other things, the retired farmer suffered from stress and high blood pressure and had suicidal thoughts, the court was told. Already in 2015, the Neubrandenburg court ruled against bringing the case to trial due to Zafke's health, but a higher court overturned that, saying that the trial could go ahead if the sessions were limited."

 

Who knows what this doctor's assessment was based on to say he was not fit to stand trial and in which could very well include his mind? You certainly don't know that!  

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I wish some poster would read the Subject Topic from beginning to end before they post their assessment.

 

How can you say he did not exhibit extraordinary difficulties associated with his old age? Do you base this on just your own opinion and what some Suicidal Old Man in a Wheel Chair says and who answers one question with the word "Yes"? Does this mean to you he is of sound mind and body because he nods his head or opens his mouth?

 

Or is it what the Judge thinks and Doctor says in Court Documents and Proceedings after a thorough examination of the Accused? You can get a Trained Monkey to push the "Yes Button" to get a Banana, but that doesn't mean he would fully understand the extent of the crime or charges brought against him. The Post said:

 

"Court had been postponed three times after presiding Judge Klaus Kabisch determined Zafke wasn't well enough to participate, based on a doctor's assessment. Among other things, the retired farmer suffered from stress and high blood pressure and had suicidal thoughts, the court was told. Already in 2015, the Neubrandenburg court ruled against bringing the case to trial due to Zafke's health, but a higher court overturned that, saying that the trial could go ahead if the sessions were limited."

 

Who knows what this doctor's assessment was based on to say he was not fit to stand trial and in which could very well include his mind? You certainly don't know that!  

 

And I wish some would read the posts they are responding to more carefully.

Note the word "cognitive". There were no claims made with regard to his general health.

Again, if he was mentally unfit to stand trial, it wouldn't even come to the current stage legal proceedings are at.

 

 

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I have personally met and heard accounts from such survivors. Apparently not the sort of thing someone forgets.

 

Like many others on this topic, your posts focus on considering the human condition of the accused. There is very little by way of extending the same sentiment to survivors and their families.

 

As far as I understand, up until the time of the legal proceedings, the accused did not exhibit extraordinary cognitive difficulties associated with old age. If he was unable to acknowledge the charges, the whole thing would have been scraped.

 

 

 

 

I don't think you will get an argument from anyone to say that it is easy to forget war time experiences. That this is something one would not easily forget. But I also once worked in an "Alzheimer's Ward" in my youth and I have seen people forget their own wives of many years and even their own kids. One woke up one morning and forgot he smoked, so he quit. Most were younger then 95 years old. So it does happen and especially at this age. Even when you don't have Alzheimer's Disease, your memory slips as you get older. Now what were we talking about again? 

 

I have also lived in Poland once and I have personally seen "Auschwitz" which is actually the German name for the Polish Town called "Oswiecim". Now it is a Memorial. I am not of the side of the Accused. If I were to choose sides I would choose the side on just Plain Common Sense".

 

A 95 Year Old Man being charged for a major war crime 71 years ago, when he wasn't even a Big Fish, just doesn't make sense to me. I can understand that if it were some High Ranking SS General, or the Camp Commandant, but a Medic??? A Paramedic if you prefer. The Highest Enlisted Rank of a Medic in the German Army is Sargent Major, but most that remain in the field are Private First Class.

 

German Medics don't even treat Prisoners and only treat other German Solders and Officers. In the camp they would act along the same lines as a Male Nurse. Now do you think that the Commandant of Auschwitz is going to call him in on the Morning Production Meetings and ask him why they are falling behind in their kill ratio?

 

Like a Pig's Pattoony he would! The biggest event in his week was probably Lancing a Boil on the Commandant's Butt or Treating VD!

[GOLDBUGGY]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That's a whole lot of words in defense of a man who participated in mass murder and genocide.

 

The post you quoted was merely a reply as to a question regarding his supposed enthusiasm in carrying out his orders. IMO, the question is not germane to the issue, and answers will remain speculative.

 

Most of the "defense" outlined above relates environmental, psychological and social arguments in order to support a thesis of diminished responsibility. A lot of it is conjecture - and would remain so unless the case goes on trial.

 

I don't think anyone claims he was a decision maker, or the vilest of the vile. That said, he did take part in some horrible things. There is a stage where just-following-orders is not a good enough explanation. There is no instant absolution for Individuals caving in under peer pressure. There could be an understanding of how a man comes to participate in such atrocities, but this does not necessarily denote forgiveness or acquittal. Such understanding could, and probably will, be relevant to sentencing and punishment.

 

For all of the "no choice" arguments, here's this - not all the Germans were Nazis, not all the Germans actively participated in the horrors carried out by the Nazis. Some Germans opposed it, worked against it - sometimes at great personal cost. There is always a choice. True enough, people often take the easier route. Guess that there's a fine line there too.

 

True! Not all Germans were Nazis! But also true not all German Jews were sent to the Concentration Camps either.

 

By the wars end only 8 Million Nazis were officially counted, which back then would have been only about 10% of the German Population. But then not all Germans could be Nazi's or allowed to be either. To be a Nazi meant you belonged to a Special Political Party, in which you swore allegiance to the leader, which was Hitler. This gave you special rights, like in finding a good job, living an a better flat, or even joining many other things that gave you added benefits,  like the SS, which you had to belong to the Nazi Party first.  

 

But just because you were not part of the Nazi Party it doesn't mean you would hide a Jew form be persecuted. Some did, but not many. Racism against Jews was running high in the country at that time and whether you belonged to the Nazi Party or not. The media made sure of that printing untrue stories of German Women being raped in the thousands by Jews. 

 

Yes, there is always a choice. But the choice most people would make is to put their pride in the pocket, along with their morals, if it meant getting a roof over their heads and food on the table for their family. Although the Nazi Part was around since 1919, and Hitler became the leader in 1920, people tend to forget that this Nazi Party started to really take off around 1930's. This was a time during the Great Depression and when food and jobs were scarce in Germany to. Hitler finally took full power in 1934, and more than 5 years before the start of the war. 

 

The truth is that most of the German Population had no idea what was going on in the Concentration Camps. Especially Auschwitz, which wasn't even in Germany but instead in Poland. The Officials tried to keep this a big secret all through the war and beyond. But they did know the Jews were being arrested daily and sent someplace. They also knew that it was a serious offence to harbor a Jew. So most just kept a blind eye to these daily events an went on with life the best way they knew how. Like a German Medic I suppose?   

[dick dasterdly]

On 9/15/2016 at 11:06 AM, dick dasterdly said:

 

I hope that the emboldened part of my original post (above) makes it clear that I had no intention of pulling the "brainwashed kid card" - as personally I don't consider that enough to absolve the leaders (and lower ranking staff that were happy to commit atrocities) being held accountable for the horrors for which they were responsible.

 

I do however, have some sympathy for those who reluctantly followed orders to save their own lives.  As another poster pointed out, I'm sure we all hope that we would behave better in those circumstances - but fear that we wouldn't.....

 

Even Jewish prisoners were involved in some aspects of the concentration camp horrors (I gather - but perhaps I'm wrong?), knowing that they would also be killed if they refused to do as they were told.

 

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I think it quite telling that you would attempt to draw moral parallels between Jewish prisoners of the Nazis and the SS personnel at the camps.

 

 

And once again your outright bias is shown as - once again -  you twist my words to suit your own agenda.

 

Last time, you said that I was trying to 'pull the brainwashed kid card' - and this time you're saying that I'm drawing moral parallels between Jewish prisoners and SS personnel......

 

Please, please read my above post again - in which I make clear (I hope) that the leaders of the atrocities and the lower ranking staff that were happy to participate in the atrocities should be held accountable for their actions.

 

But -  that I have some sympathy for those who were 'forced' to be involved in the horror - or face death themselves.  Reading this as drawing parallels between Jewish prisoners and the SS is only an attempt to smear my post and thoughts.

 

Although perhaps I should have added (to satisfy those looking for an excuse to infer non-existent motives against posters), that obviously the concentration camp prisoners were in a far worse position than any German staff that were also forced to do things that horrified them.

Edited September 16, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[GOLDBUGGY]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That's a whole lot of words in defense of a man who participated in mass murder and genocide.

 

The post you quoted was merely a reply as to a question regarding his supposed enthusiasm in carrying out his orders. IMO, the question is not germane to the issue, and answers will remain speculative.

 

Most of the "defense" outlined above relates environmental, psychological and social arguments in order to support a thesis of diminished responsibility. A lot of it is conjecture - and would remain so unless the case goes on trial.

 

I don't think anyone claims he was a decision maker, or the vilest of the vile. That said, he did take part in some horrible things. There is a stage where just-following-orders is not a good enough explanation. There is no instant absolution for Individuals caving in under peer pressure. There could be an understanding of how a man comes to participate in such atrocities, but this does not necessarily denote forgiveness or acquittal. Such understanding could, and probably will, be relevant to sentencing and punishment.

 

For all of the "no choice" arguments, here's this - not all the Germans were Nazis, not all the Germans actively participated in the horrors carried out by the Nazis. Some Germans opposed it, worked against it - sometimes at great personal cost. There is always a choice. True enough, people often take the easier route. Guess that there's a fine line there too.

 

So what did this German Medic actually do where he crossed the line and following orders was not a good enough explanation? Do you even know? Or are you guessing again because he was charged?

[GOLDBUGGY]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Many wouldn't lose sleep over it, fair enough.

Guess somewhat different with regard to some survivors and their families.

Survivors and their Families? You talk like this happened last week!

 

This happened 71 Years go My Friend. How many Survivors are going to actually find? Most of the children that arrived in the Concentration Camps with taking to be gassed right away as they were thought to be too week to do any meaningful work. They were just considered an extra mouth to feed.

 

If you did find a survivor I highly doubt they would be jumping up and down from joy now that they caught a Medic. I would think they have gotten over it by now and just want to forget about it. After all, the last time they would have seen them was 71 years ago. So what kind of fond memories are they going to have when they may have been a small child or are in their 90's by now?      

[Morch]

1 hour ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I don't think you will get an argument from anyone to say that it is easy to forget war time experiences. That this is something one would not easily forget. But I also once worked in an "Alzheimer's Ward" in my youth and I have seen people forget their own wives of many years and even their own kids. One woke up one morning and forgot he smoked, so he quit. Most were younger then 95 years old. So it does happen and especially at this age. Even when you don't have Alzheimer's Disease, your memory slips as you get older. Now what were we talking about again? 

 

I have also lived in Poland once and I have personally seen "Auschwitz" which is actually the German name for the Polish Town called "Oswiecim". Now it is a Memorial. I am not of the side of the Accused. If I were to choose sides I would choose the side on just Plain Common Sense".

 

A 95 Year Old Man being charged for a major war crime 71 years ago, when he wasn't even a Big Fish, just doesn't make sense to me. I can understand that if it were some High Ranking SS General, or the Camp Commandant, but a Medic??? A Paramedic if you prefer. The Highest Enlisted Rank of a Medic in the German Army is Sargent Major, but most that remain in the field are Private First Class.

 

German Medics don't even treat Prisoners and only treat other German Solders and Officers. In the camp they would act along the same lines as a Male Nurse. Now do you think that the Commandant of Auschwitz is going to call him in on the Morning Production Meetings and ask him why they are falling behind in their kill ratio?

 

Like a Pig's Pattoony he would! The biggest event in his week was probably Lancing a Boil on the Commandant's Butt or Treating VD!

 

Again, a lot of words regarding something which did not even come up, as yet. As far as I am aware, apart from your posts, the accused did not claim memory issues, and was not found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial.

 

Some elderly people remember, some do not. There is no specific age at which people can automatically claim memory loss. There's another current topic, btw, about the oldest living man. He's a wee bit older than the accused, survived the very same camp, and still appears to be in command of his faculties.

 

As said earlier, I do not have strong opinions as to whether the accused, if found guilty, should be severely punished.  But then again, I'm not a survivor, and some of them may feel differently about it. IMO, the trial itself bears more importance then the punishing the accused (if found guilty).

 

Unlike some, I do not pretend to have particular insight into his state of mind, inner feelings and exact activities in the camp. As the OP states that:

 

Quote

Prosecutors allege that Zafke's unit was involved in putting gas into gas chambers to kill Jews and others, screening blood and other samples from hospitalized women prisoners, and otherwise helping the camp run by treating SS guard personnel.

 

Perhaps  shedding light on these issues will be best served by the upcoming legal proceedings.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Pakboong said:

A larger problem IMO is that the defense has no defense. They are prohibited by law from "Denying the Holocaust". He was there, he has no defense therefor he is guilty. The number cannot be attacked for accuracy because it is a felony to do so. No need to waste any more time on this one. The way he is charged, not guilty is not possible.

 

Not a surprising approach from someone often engaged in Holocaust Revisionism (among other conspiracy theories).

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

True! Not all Germans were Nazis! But also true not all German Jews were sent to the Concentration Camps either.

 

By the wars end only 8 Million Nazis were officially counted, which back then would have been only about 10% of the German Population. But then not all Germans could be Nazi's or allowed to be either. To be a Nazi meant you belonged to a Special Political Party, in which you swore allegiance to the leader, which was Hitler. This gave you special rights, like in finding a good job, living an a better flat, or even joining many other things that gave you added benefits,  like the SS, which you had to belong to the Nazi Party first.  

 

But just because you were not part of the Nazi Party it doesn't mean you would hide a Jew form be persecuted. Some did, but not many. Racism against Jews was running high in the country at that time and whether you belonged to the Nazi Party or not. The media made sure of that printing untrue stories of German Women being raped in the thousands by Jews. 

 

Yes, there is always a choice. But the choice most people would make is to put their pride in the pocket, along with their morals, if it meant getting a roof over their heads and food on the table for their family. Although the Nazi Part was around since 1919, and Hitler became the leader in 1920, people tend to forget that this Nazi Party started to really take off around 1930's. This was a time during the Great Depression and when food and jobs were scarce in Germany to. Hitler finally took full power in 1934, and more than 5 years before the start of the war. 

 

The truth is that most of the German Population had no idea what was going on in the Concentration Camps. Especially Auschwitz, which wasn't even in Germany but instead in Poland. The Officials tried to keep this a big secret all through the war and beyond. But they did know the Jews were being arrested daily and sent someplace. They also knew that it was a serious offence to harbor a Jew. So most just kept a blind eye to these daily events an went on with life the best way they knew how. Like a German Medic I suppose?   

 

The German medic in question did not "turn a blind eye", but took part in the genocide of the Jewish people.

I would guess this is where the issues of moral choices and fine lines come into it. Apparently we do not agree there.

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The German medic in question did not "turn a blind eye", but took part in the genocide of the Jewish people.

I would guess this is where the issues of moral choices and fine lines come into it. Apparently we do not agree there.

Which is why I'm still wondering  (as per Goldbuggy's post):-

 

What did this German Medic actually do where he crossed the line and following orders was not a good enough explanation? Do you even know? Or are you guessing again because he was charged?

 

I've no doubt that you'll construe this a 'defending' post  - when its nothing of the sort.  I just think its important to know whether he was an enthusiastic supporter of following the appalling orders given to him by the leaders.

 

As has been previously pointed out by posters - when in a position where disobeying an order means death - my guestimate is that at least 90% of us would obey the order .

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

And once again your outright bias is shown as - once again -  you twist my words to suit your own agenda.

 

Last time, you said that I was trying to 'pull the brainwashed kid card' - and this time you're saying that I'm drawing moral parallels between Jewish prisoners and SS personnel......

 

Please, please read my above post again - in which I make clear (I hope) that the leaders of the atrocities and the lower ranking staff that were happy to participate in the atrocities should be held accountable for their actions.

 

But -  that I have some sympathy for those who were 'forced' to be involved in the horror - or face death themselves.  Reading this as drawing parallels between Jewish prisoners and the SS is only an attempt to smear my post and thoughts.

 

Although perhaps I should have added (to satisfy those looking for an excuse to infer non-existent motives against posters), that obviously the concentration camp prisoners were in a far worse position than any German staff that were also forced to do things that horrified them.

 

If "outright bias" means not rushing to defend and excuse former SS personnel, probably yes. Not sure this is an issue one ought to be "unbiased" about. Agenda? The only agenda evident on this topic is by posters coming up with a host of reasons aimed at casting doubt on Zafke's culpability, and on the merit of him even being charged with anything.

 

As pointed out earlier, there is no clear indication that Zafke was "forced", or to the best of my knowledge, that he expressed remorse for his past. That posters allege it as possible, does not make it so. And once more, the question of how emphatically one followed orders is perhaps more relevant to the end result of a legal inquiry or trial. Doubt it completely absolves a person.

 

I will stand by my comment regarding the comparison made between Nazi personnel at the camps and their victims. The  choices or lack of are not similar.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

So what did this German Medic actually do where he crossed the line and following orders was not a good enough explanation? Do you even know? Or are you guessing again because he was charged?

 

Again, from the OP:

 

Quote

Prosecutors allege that Zafke's unit was involved in putting gas into gas chambers to kill Jews and others, screening blood and other samples from hospitalized women prisoners, and otherwise helping the camp run by treating SS guard personnel.

 

They say the unit was also involved in auxiliary guard duties.

 

I did not claim to know for certain, hence I have less issues with him standing trial and things coming to light.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Morch said:

 

If "outright bias" means not rushing to defend and excuse former SS personnel, probably yes. Not sure this is an issue one ought to be "unbiased" about. Agenda? The only agenda evident on this topic is by posters coming up with a host of reasons aimed at casting doubt on Zafke's culpability, and on the merit of him even being charged with anything.

 

As pointed out earlier, there is no clear indication that Zafke was "forced", or to the best of my knowledge, that he expressed remorse for his past. That posters allege it as possible, does not make it so. And once more, the question of how emphatically one followed orders is perhaps more relevant to the end result of a legal inquiry or trial. Doubt it completely absolves a person.

 

I will stand by my comment regarding the comparison made between Nazi personnel at the camps and their victims. The  choices or lack of are not similar.

And that's because you're determined that anyone charged, regardless of how complicit they were in the atrocities - must be guilty.

 

Whereas I am more concerned as to whether they were happy carrying out their orders - or only did so because they knew the alternative was their own death.

 

We already know that soldiers in wars sometimes massacre innocent civilians.  They get away with it, as long as they are on the winning side.

 

But its more worrying when one tries to put oneself in the same situation as that faced by the minority of Germans who realised that what was happening was wrong.  Even those who realised this didn't speak out, but a few tried to help the persecuted in any way they could.  The vast majority however, believed the propaganda.....

 

If the same happened to us, would conscripted soldiers refuse to follow orders - knowing that it would result in their death?  I doubt it.

[SheungWan]

4 minutes ago, Pakboong said:

Take a look at the source of that particular info. Unless of course, you think Ynet news is run by neo nazis.

 

One of the classic arguments of the Nazis and repeated by their latter-day wannabes was that the National Socialists led by Hitler was in the front-line fighting the Jewish-Bolshevik plot. This echo from the past segues into current conspiracy theories, but key to the argument about prosecutions as per this thread is that old Nazis and their collaborators are not really war criminals, but soldiers obeying orders in furtherance of a higher cause. These guys have an agenda.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Survivors and their Families? You talk like this happened last week!

 

This happened 71 Years go My Friend. How many Survivors are going to actually find? Most of the children that arrived in the Concentration Camps with taking to be gassed right away as they were thought to be too week to do any meaningful work. They were just considered an extra mouth to feed.

 

If you did find a survivor I highly doubt they would be jumping up and down from joy now that they caught a Medic. I would think they have gotten over it by now and just want to forget about it. After all, the last time they would have seen them was 71 years ago. So what kind of fond memories are they going to have when they may have been a small child or are in their 90's by now?      

 

I am most definitely not talking about it as if it happened last week.

 

There are still survivors, in the same way that there are people like Zafke. Some are even older, some younger. As pointed out earlier,  one of them appears on another topic on this forum. Many of the survivors have families, not necessarily those they had when they reached the camps. 

 

As for how interested they are in this trial, it would probably vary. Different people, different feelings. Not presuming to speak for all of them or to assume that there is unity of opinion among them. Some feel more vengeful than others, I guess. One of the issues that concern the current legal proceedings is the Judge's decision to limit (or to disallow) testimonies by survivors. On a recent similar trial, one of the survivors said that for him, the important bit was to repeat his experiences in court, and to confront the accused.

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I am most definitely not talking about it as if it happened last week.

 

There are still survivors, in the same way that there are people like Zafke. Some are even older, some younger. As pointed out earlier,  one of them appears on another topic on this forum. Many of the survivors have families, not necessarily those they had when they reached the camps. 

 

As for how interested they are in this trial, it would probably vary. Different people, different feelings. Not presuming to speak for all of them or to assume that there is unity of opinion among them. Some feel more vengeful than others, I guess. One of the issues that concern the current legal proceedings is the Judge's decision to limit (or to disallow) testimonies by survivors. On a recent similar trial, one of the survivors said that for him, the important bit was to repeat his experiences in court, and to confront the accused.

Re. the emboldened part - that's appalling!

 

Did he give any excuse for not allowing survivors' testimonies?

[balo]

The man is 95 so he must have done something right in his life.  But you can never erase 1939-45 from a Nazi . 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by balo

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Which is why I'm still wondering  (as per Goldbuggy's post):-

 

What did this German Medic actually do where he crossed the line and following orders was not a good enough explanation? Do you even know? Or are you guessing again because he was charged?

 

I've no doubt that you'll construe this a 'defending' post  - when its nothing of the sort.  I just think its important to know whether he was an enthusiastic supporter of following the appalling orders given to him by the leaders.

 

As has been previously pointed out by posters - when in a position where disobeying an order means death - my guestimate is that at least 90% of us would obey the order .

 

Guess we will have to disagree on the legal importance of his enthusiasm with regard to possible guilt and punishment.

 

Outright disobeying orders might have resulted in death. But as anyone who ever wore uniform would know, there are many ways of not carrying out orders. Also, asking for a transfer to another post would not have resulted in facing a firing squad.