Trial of SS medic who served at Auschwitz begins in Germany

[xineohp]

By my calculation this man was 19 years old at the time. I doubt if there would be many amongst us, even in today's military forces, who could be classed as both knowing their own mind and having the strength of character to oppose something they knew to be wrong. At that age mental conditioning or 'brain washing' is par for the course within any military organisation.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Morch said:

 

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.

 

 

You're guessing again.

 

I gather that his unit were sometimes responsible for putting in the gas pellets.  Assuming he was one of those told to do this, do you honestly think that refusing would have resulted in anything other than either being immediately shot, or transferred to the front?

 

And so we're back to square one - you obviously believe that you would have died rather than follow those orders, and perhaps you would be one of the tiny percentage preferring death to following unforgivable orders.  But you, like myself and everyone else will hopefully never be in the position to find out.....

 

I agree though that the judge not allowing survivors' testimony is unforgivable.  Their testimony would have been a good indications as to the accused's behaviour and attitude in the concentration camp.

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

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.

 

I think that anyone who served as staff in these camps is guilty. Yes. There could be different levels of guilt, of course, different levels of complicity. But essentially, anyone who took part is tainted. That said, I do acknowledge that bringing people of this age to trial, over their relatively minor parts can be cringeworthy. On the other hand, why should they be afforded leniency which was denied to their victims? After all, the survivors are not necessarily younger, most carrying physical and mental scars hard to comprehend. I do not have a good answer on how to deal with this. My tentative opinion is that these old Nazis standing trial, small fish as they are, is the last chance for survivors to be heard, and for living memories to be retained. As for actual punishment, most times it is meaningless, and cannot even be carried out. From a personal point of view,  it is the least important part of the process. But then again, not being a survivor, I would hesitate to criticize those of them wishing vengeance.

 

And lets get something straight. This wasn't something carried out in the heat of battle. It was not a single massacre which occurred during a campaign. It was systematic mass murder, a genocide. And no, soldiers do not always "get away with it", not even if they are on the winning side.

 

Most modern Western armies have guidelines instructing soldiers as to when an order is illegal and under which conditions it could (or even should) be refused. In most cases, this does not involve being executed. Granted that things were different in WW2, but I doubt anything but outright disobedience (and not regarding a trivial matter) would have resulted in death.

[Rimmer]

Multiple off topic posts about Stalin and downed airmen have been removed also quoted replies. 

Topic is about the trial of an SS Medic who served in Auschwitz

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Re. the emboldened part - that's appalling!

 

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

 

Not that I'm aware of, but could have missed it.

There was a motion filed to remove the judge, citing both this and frequent delays in trial.

 

From the OP:

 

Quote

Prosecutors argued in their motion that Kabisch never intended for the trial to start, noting — among other things — that no Auschwitz survivors had been invited to testify, as is common in such proceedings, dpa reported.

 

However, this motion may prove to cause further delays:

 

Quote

Kabisch told the court the motions for his removal would now have to be heard before he could schedule another session in the trial. A court spokesman said it is not clear how long it will take for the motions to be resolved.

 

I think that from the German legal/penal system's point of view, the best scenario would be if Zafke passed away before the trial could commence. Poster saradoc1972 could probably explain the related bureaucratic and legal issues better than anyone else on this forum.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

You're guessing again.

 

I gather that his unit were sometimes responsible for putting in the gas pellets.  Assuming he was one of those told to do this, do you honestly think that refusing would have resulted in anything other than either being immediately shot, or transferred to the front?

 

And so we're back to square one - you obviously believe that you would have died rather than follow those orders, and perhaps you would be one of the tiny percentage preferring death to following unforgivable orders.  But you, like myself and everyone else will hopefully never be in the position to find out.....

 

I agree though that the judge not allowing survivors' testimony is unforgivable.  Their testimony would have been a good indications as to the accused's behaviour and attitude in the concentration camp.

 

Of course I'm guessing. That's the point of the legal proceedings, to dispel doubts and to ascertain the facts (as accurately as possible). I do not know the exact nature of his duties, nor how these were routinely carried out. In my experience, some soldiers can be quite adept in avoiding tasks which they are loath to carry. Outright and outspoken disobedience is another thing.

 

Being transferred to the front is not a death sentence, but a choice. It carries its own risks, of course.

 

And no, I do not presume to be sure how I would have acted under such conditions (bearing in mind that all this assumes reluctance on Zafke's part). One can only hope that the situation does not arise, and that if it does - the right choices will be made.

 

[dick dasterdly]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think that anyone who served as staff in these camps is guilty. Yes. There could be different levels of guilt, of course, different levels of complicity. But essentially, anyone who took part is tainted. That said, I do acknowledge that bringing people of this age to trial, over their relatively minor parts can be cringeworthy. On the other hand, why should they be afforded leniency which was denied to their victims? After all, the survivors are not necessarily younger, most carrying physical and mental scars hard to comprehend. I do not have a good answer on how to deal with this. My tentative opinion is that these old Nazis standing trial, small fish as they are, is the last chance for survivors to be heard, and for living memories to be retained. As for actual punishment, most times it is meaningless, and cannot even be carried out. From a personal point of view,  it is the least important part of the process. But then again, not being a survivor, I would hesitate to criticize those of them wishing vengeance.

 

And lets get something straight. This wasn't something carried out in the heat of battle. It was not a single massacre which occurred during a campaign. It was systematic mass murder, a genocide. And no, soldiers do not always "get away with it", not even if they are on the winning side.

 

Most modern Western armies have guidelines instructing soldiers as to when an order is illegal and under which conditions it could (or even should) be refused. In most cases, this does not involve being executed. Granted that things were different in WW2, but I doubt anything but outright disobedience (and not regarding a trivial matter) would have resulted in death.

Re. your first para. - I couldn't give a hoot about their age if they were responsible for the orders of murdering or carrying out massacres.  Come to that, I think they need to be given long sentences if they murdered/raped etc.  civilians- just  because they 'could'.  You're also forgetting that some Jewish prisoners were involved in the massacre 'process' - do you think they are guilty?

 

Of course they aren't!  They were in an impossible nightmare situation.  And its not unreasonable to assume that some of the German staff were also in an impossible situation - and behaved like the VAST majority of the rest of us, obeyed orders rather than refusing and being shot or sent to the front line.

 

I agree that's imperative that the survivors are heard, which is why I'm wondering why the judge has decided not to exclude their testimony?  Perhaps he's a nazi sympathiser, or perhaps he knows that they have nothing to say against the defendant?  Either way, its a very bad decision that hopefully will be reversed.

 

Moving on to your last para. - have you already forgotten the massacres carried out in Vietnam and Iraq?  And I've no doubt the allied soldiers behaved just as badly at times during WW1 and WW2.  But I'm sure you have examples of soldiers from the winning side being either executed or given long prison sentences for their atrocities.

[dick dasterdly]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Of course I'm guessing. That's the point of the legal proceedings, to dispel doubts and to ascertain the facts (as accurately as possible). I do not know the exact nature of his duties, nor how these were routinely carried out. In my experience, some soldiers can be quite adept in avoiding tasks which they are loath to carry. Outright and outspoken disobedience is another thing.

 

Being transferred to the front is not a death sentence, but a choice. It carries its own risks, of course.

 

And no, I do not presume to be sure how I would have acted under such conditions (bearing in mind that all this assumes reluctance on Zafke's part). One can only hope that the situation does not arise, and that if it does - the right choices will be made.

 

In which case perhaps you should be less zealous in condemning those who were 'D list' offenders - that in the absence of evidence (so far) behaved as badly as you admit that you may have behaved.

 

We all hope that we would be brave and disobey appalling orders - but even recent evidence indicates that the vast majority follow the herd - and kill those they believe may possibly be the enemy, extremely badly. 

 

From your posts, I have a horrible feeling that you would be one of those following the herd and justifying any 'collateral damage' in which you were involved.

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Re. your first para. - I couldn't give a hoot about their age if they were responsible for the orders of murdering or carrying out massacres.  Come to that, I think they need to be given long sentences if they murdered/raped etc.  civilians- just  because they 'could'.  You're also forgetting that some Jewish prisoners were involved in the massacre 'process' - do you think they are guilty?

 

Of course they aren't!  They were in an impossible nightmare situation.  And its not unreasonable to assume that some of the German staff were also in an impossible situation - and behaved like the VAST majority of the rest of us, obeyed orders rather than refusing and being shot or sent to the front line.

 

I agree that's imperative that the survivors are heard, which is why I'm wondering why the judge has decided not to exclude their testimony?  Perhaps he's a nazi sympathiser, or perhaps he knows that they have nothing to say against the defendant?  Either way, its a very bad decision that hopefully will be reversed.

 

Moving on to your last para. - have you already forgotten the massacres carried out in Vietnam and Iraq?  And I've no doubt the allied soldiers behaved just as badly at times during WW1 and WW2.  But I'm sure you have examples of soldiers from the winning side being either executed or given long prison sentences for their atrocities.

 

Once more, I do not accept the suggested equivalence between SS personnel and their victims. The only ones harming anyone were the former.  They were the ones who had a conceivable choice. 

 

Obeying orders, out of fear to one's immediate or future personal safety carries only so much as moral justification. This is not a denial of it being part of human behavior, but a comment on expectations. I think that most systems dealing with such moral decisions tend to set the bar somewhat higher than the mean.

 

I have no idea as to the judge's political views, and the testimonies in question do not necessarily concern the Zafke specifically. All this speculation regarding motives (Zafke's, the Judge's) is futile. Things will either come to light on trial, or they won't.

 

My last paragraph simply related that over time, armed forces are generally more aware to issues of atrocities, illegal orders and cases where abuse of authority are concerned. It does not mean things are anyway near perfect, just that they are better than in the past. The Nazis were committing genocide, I somehow doubt either Vietnam or Iraq qualify.

[Morch]

57 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

In which case perhaps you should be less zealous in condemning those who were 'D list' offenders - that in the absence of evidence (so far) behaved as badly as you admit that you may have behaved.

 

We all hope that we would be brave and disobey appalling orders - but even recent evidence indicates that the vast majority follow the herd - and kill those they believe may possibly be the enemy, extremely badly. 

 

From your posts, I have a horrible feeling that you would be one of those following the herd and justifying any 'collateral damage' in which you were involved.

 

Baseless mudslinging is not an argument.

 

[dick dasterdly]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Once more, I do not accept the suggested equivalence between SS personnel and their victims. The only ones harming anyone were the former.  They were the ones who had a conceivable choice. 

 

Obeying orders, out of fear to one's immediate or future personal safety carries only so much as moral justification. This is not a denial of it being part of human behavior, but a comment on expectations. I think that most systems dealing with such moral decisions tend to set the bar somewhat higher than the mean.

 

I have no idea as to the judge's political views, and the testimonies in question do not necessarily concern the Zafke specifically. All this speculation regarding motives (Zafke's, the Judge's) is futile. Things will either come to light on trial, or they won't.

 

My last paragraph simply related that over time, armed forces are generally more aware to issues of atrocities, illegal orders and cases where abuse of authority are concerned. It does not mean things are anyway near perfect, just that they are better than in the past. The Nazis were committing genocide, I somehow doubt either Vietnam or Iraq qualify.

I only wish that I was as confident as you obviously are, that I would accept being killed rather than disobeying an abhorrent order.

 

Even the 'lucky' Jewish concentration camp prisoners did things that must have left them (if they survived, but I doubt they did) scarred for life at the appalling things they not only witnessed, but participated in to a certain extent.

 

And no, before you (again....) claim that I'm equating this with the officials that ordered these atrocities - that claim is only in your incredibly biased mind.

[dick dasterdly]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Baseless mudslinging is not an argument.

 

 

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.

 

17 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.

 

 

No, the mud-slinging started in your post quoted above .

 

Edit - I was trying to ascertain the facts about this far from top ranking guy-  as to the acts that he personally had carried out - and why.

 

You, on the other hand started 'throwing mud' by doing your best to imply that I was a nazi sympathiser - i.e. "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."

Edited September 16, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

I only wish that I was as confident as you obviously are, that I would accept being killed rather than disobeying an abhorrent order.

 

Even the 'lucky' Jewish concentration camp prisoners did things that must have left them (if they survived, but I doubt they did) scarred for life at the appalling things they not only witnessed, but participated in to a certain extent.

 

And no, before you (again....) claim that I'm equating this with the officials that ordered these atrocities - that claim is only in your incredibly biased mind.

 

That's some creative reading. Nowhere did I say that I'm confident I would act in one way or another. The repeated claim that disobedience would have resulted in death was addressed in earlier posts.

 

Doubt anyone would call the Sonderkommando "lucky".

How is the above not an attempt to compare between then and the SS staff at the camps?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

No, the mud-slinging started in your post quoted above .

 

Edit - I was trying to ascertain the facts about this far from top ranking guy-  as to the acts that he personally had carried out - and why.

 

You, on the other hand started 'throwing mud' by doing your best to imply that I was a nazi sympathiser - i.e. "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."

 

My post was at least referencing something you actually posted, whereas your bogus assertion runs contrary to most of what I have posted on this topic.

 

I did not claim you are a Nazi sympathizer. But as an aside, IMO some (at least on this forum) harbor both anti-Nazi and anti-Jewish sentiments, so things may get confusing at times. The telling remark was, I think, aimed more at the apparent willingness to employ any far fetched argument to support justifications for the accused.

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's some creative reading. Nowhere did I say that I'm confident I would act in one way or another. The repeated claim that disobedience would have resulted in death was addressed in earlier posts.

 

Doubt anyone would call the Sonderkommando "lucky".

How is the above not an attempt to compare between then and the SS staff at the camps?

OK, I give up as I can't be bothered to argue against your deflecting posts anymore .

 

But I'm glad that you agree that you may well have also followed abhorrent orders.

 

I'm not at all religious -  but the saying 'there but for the grace of god' makes a lot of sense to me.

[SheungWan]

4 hours ago, xineohp said:

By my calculation this man was 19 years old at the time. I doubt if there would be many amongst us, even in today's military forces, who could be classed as both knowing their own mind and having the strength of character to oppose something they knew to be wrong. At that age mental conditioning or 'brain washing' is par for the course within any military organisation.

 

What a load of cock and bull. Unless they were 19 year old Nazis. And the attempted whitewash continues.........

Edited September 16, 2016 by SheungWan

[Ulysses G.]

Intetesting how many of the posters making excuses for this Nazi, do the same thing when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Does anyone take such opinions seriously?

[GOLDBUGGY]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

Intetesting how many of the posters making excuses for this Nazi, do the same thing when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Does anyone take such opinions seriously?

It all depends on how you read these posts. I never read one post here where people were making any excuses for someone who carried out serious war crimes here or defending a terrorist. Islamic or not. I also think we all agreed that if this person was a High Ranking Nazi Official, who was directly involved in these war crimes, that he should be brought to justice. 

 

Were we differ is on to what extent a war crime was committed, or even if it was committed. Does a Medic who served in the summer of 1944 in Auschwitz who's main job was the care of German Solders qualify as a war criminal? As one poster blatantly posted recently, he felt that anyone who worked in a Nazi Death Camp should be brought to justice and regardless of his involvement. I agree that this seems to be the going trend these days, but is that justice? 

 

They paint a picture that this person had a choice in what he did. Really? What choice does one have who is in the army, drafted or otherwise, and during war time? You go where you are sent and where they feel you are best qualified for and needed. If you refuse orders you are punished and sometimes to the point of death. They were mere puppets in some big political game! 

 

To say they should be charged for war crimes, because they were assigned to the Death Camps is on equal footing as say that all Vietnam Vets, who were Drafted, and forced to go to Vietnam to fight a war, should now all be charged for war crimes. Especially the ones that volunteered as they were proud to serve their country.

 

Nonsense! War is War! Many times innocent people get hurt then! The Survivors of WWII are not just the people who survived the "Holocaust". Many American, British, and French Solders who survived this ugly war, and did and saw things no human should ever have to, are still having nightmares about this today and still refuse to talk about it.

 

Personally I think it is time they gave this whole thing a big rest. Give all those Survivors (Hero's) some peace and quiet in their remaining golden years. Bringing this crap up after 71 years only adds fuel to the fire that will remain burning the rest of their lives anyway.   

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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:

 

 

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

 

 

[manarak]

12 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

It all depends on how you read these posts. I never read one post here where people were making any excuses for someone who carried out serious war crimes here or defending a terrorist. Islamic or not. I also think we all agreed that if this person was a High Ranking Nazi Official, who was directly involved in these war crimes, that he should be brought to justice. 

 

Were we differ is on to what extent a war crime was committed, or even if it was committed. Does a Medic who served in the summer of 1944 in Auschwitz who's main job was the care of German Solders qualify as a war criminal? As one poster blatantly posted recently, he felt that anyone who worked in a Nazi Death Camp should be brought to justice and regardless of his involvement. I agree that this seems to be the going trend these days, but is that justice? 

 

They paint a picture that this person had a choice in what he did. Really? What choice does one have who is in the army, drafted or otherwise, and during war time? You go where you are sent and where they feel you are best qualified for and needed. If you refuse orders you are punished and sometimes to the point of death. They were mere puppets in some big political game! 

 

To say they should be charged for war crimes, because they were assigned to the Death Camps is on equal footing as say that all Vietnam Vets, who were Drafted, and forced to go to Vietnam to fight a war, should now all be charged for war crimes. Especially the ones that volunteered as they were proud to serve their country.

 

Nonsense! War is War! Many times innocent people get hurt then! The Survivors of WWII are not just the people who survived the "Holocaust". Many American, British, and French Solders who survived this ugly war, and did and saw things no human should ever have to, are still having nightmares about this today and still refuse to talk about it.

 

Personally I think it is time they gave this whole thing a big rest. Give all those Survivors (Hero's) some peace and quiet in their remaining golden years. Bringing this crap up after 71 years only adds fuel to the fire that will remain burning the rest of their lives anyway.   

 

A good post with a healthy opinion - like.

[GOLDBUGGY]

So this Medic's War Crimes are said to be: " 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."

 

Since when was screening blood samples of prisoners and treating SS Guards as a Medic considered a War Crime? As to being involved in putting gas into gas chambers Zafke denies doing this. I tend to believe him as this job would below his pay grade even for a Private, and it would not be his job to do so. They would use Polish or Ukrainian Prisoners to do this for an little extra at meal time. 

 

But if it is proved he was forced to do this then this this tells me how low he was in the Ranking to have such a terrible job. I can't see anyone enjoy that job by climbing a roof to dropping in gas pellets? I wouldn't want a job like that on my worst day.

 

Oh Well! The German Prosecutors have a Bigger Fish to fry which they are waiting to go to Trial.soon They only gave her name as "Helma M". She is also 92 years old now. Her War Crimes are for being a 20 year old Radio Operator for the Commandant at Auschwitz. I can't hardly wait for them to catch the Cleaning Lady so they can really throw the book at her. Get Real!  

[Andaman Al]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I think that anyone who served as staff in these camps is guilty. Yes. There could be different levels of guilt, of course, different levels of complicity. But essentially, anyone who took part is tainted. That said, I do acknowledge that bringing people of this age to trial, over their relatively minor parts can be cringeworthy. On the other hand, why should they be afforded leniency which was denied to their victims? After all, the survivors are not necessarily younger, most carrying physical and mental scars hard to comprehend. I do not have a good answer on how to deal with this. My tentative opinion is that these old Nazis standing trial, small fish as they are, is the last chance for survivors to be heard, and for living memories to be retained. As for actual punishment, most times it is meaningless, and cannot even be carried out. From a personal point of view,  it is the least important part of the process. But then again, not being a survivor, I would hesitate to criticize those of them wishing vengeance.

 

And lets get something straight. This wasn't something carried out in the heat of battle. It was not a single massacre which occurred during a campaign. It was systematic mass murder, a genocide. And no, soldiers do not always "get away with it", not even if they are on the winning side.

 

Most modern Western armies have guidelines instructing soldiers as to when an order is illegal and under which conditions it could (or even should) be refused. In most cases, this does not involve being executed. Granted that things were different in WW2, but I doubt anything but outright disobedience (and not regarding a trivial matter) would have resulted in death.

 

So I pose you a dichotomy. What should be done then (when they were still living) with every Pilot and crew member from the UK and US that followed Air Vice Marshall Harris' orders for the fire bombing of Dresden and many other cities? These were not Military targets but the carpet bombing of hundreds of thousands of German civilians. Is that worthy that any remaining Pilots or crew still alive should be made to stand trial for war crimes? War crimes only belong to the losers. Now as a British Air Force Pilot and one who has been involved in active service on many occasions I do not take the subject lightly. Had we 'lost' the war then AVM 'Bomber' Harris would have been forever remembered as a war criminal and would no doubt have been hanged by the end of the 40's.

 

This trial concerns a 'boy' not even old enough to be served a beer in the US. Some of you say he knew what he was doing and he should have refused!! I mean seriously!! Are people here that filled with hate they lose all sense of rationality? If he refused a direct order from an SS Officer he would have had a bullet through the head on the spot, instantly with 100% certainty. Do you all think these young boys enjoyed what they were doing? They probably thought they were in a living hell and there was only one way to survive...do as ordered. I would love you all to walk a mile in that boys shoes when he was 19 and posted as a guard to a concentration camp. If you all followed your own couch potato advice that you give on here you would never have lived to the age of 20.

[GOLDBUGGY]

14 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

So I pose you a dichotomy. What should be done then (when they were still living) with every Pilot and crew member from the UK and US that followed Air Vice Marshall Harris' orders for the fire bombing of Dresden and many other cities? These were not Military targets but the carpet bombing of hundreds of thousands of German civilians. Is that worthy that any remaining Pilots or crew still alive should be made to stand trial for war crimes? War crimes only belong to the losers. Now as a British Air Force Pilot and one who has been involved in active service on many occasions I do not take the subject lightly. Had we 'lost' the war then AVM 'Bomber' Harris would have been forever remembered as a war criminal and would no doubt have been hanged by the end of the 40's.

 

This trial concerns a 'boy' not even old enough to be served a beer in the US. Some of you say he knew what he was doing and he should have refused!! I mean seriously!! Are people here that filled with hate they lose all sense of rationality? If he refused a direct order from an SS Officer he would have had a bullet through the head on the spot, instantly with 100% certainty. Do you all think these young boys enjoyed what they were doing? They probably thought they were in a living hell and there was only one way to survive...do as ordered. I would love you all to walk a mile in that boys shoes when he was 19 and posted as a guard to a concentration camp. If you all followed your own couch potato advice that you give on here you would never have lived to the age of 20.

Great Post! Glad you joined in. It is a pleasure to hear from someone who has been their and knows what this like to have to take Orders. I agree with you 100%. As a Solder they don't train you to think for yourself. They train you to work as a team and to take Orders without hesitation. That disobeying an Order is in fact a very serious offense in the Armed Forces.

 

Interesting that you mentioned Pilots and forced to take Orders in your post. During 9/11 Two Fighter Pilots were ordered to track and follow Flight 93 which was headed to Washington and the White House. However, the passengers overtook the hijackers and as a result this airplane crashed killing all passengers, hijackers, and crew before these F-16 Pilots could arrive. This is what was originally said about these events, but this is not what really happened. 

 

The true events of this day finally came out which until recently was classified as Top Secret. These Two F-16 Pilots scammed to intercept this flight 93 and they did catch it in flight. Both Pilots recently testified to this fact. They were ordered to take it down. But since there was no time to arm their aircraft they didn't have Missiles to do so. So there plan was to Ram this Passenger Jet at the tail, causing it to spin out of control. Apparently, this Passenger Jet crashed before they could do anything. Hum? 

 

If they were successful on their Mission, some here would call that a War Crime as innocent civilians were killed. I would not. It is not that I wouldn't feel sorry for the families of these passengers as I do. But things happen sometimes and these Pilots were only taking Orders and doing what they were told to do.      

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

It all depends on how you read these posts. I never read one post here where people were making any excuses for someone who carried out serious war crimes here or defending a terrorist. Islamic or not.

 

 

Perhaps you need to read more carefully or with less bias. Over the years I have seen many examples of both.

In fact , there have been numerous posts where someone came right out and made it obvious that they hate Jews as well as many others where one can easily read between the lines. There are some people out there who could care less that war criminals slaughtered millions of Jews, but usually they will not come straight out and admit it.

[Andaman Al]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Perhaps you need to read more carefully or with less bias. Over the years I have seen many examples of both.

In fact , there have been numerous posts where someone came right out and made it obvious that they hate Jews as well as many others where one can easily read between the lines. There are some people out there who could care less that war criminals slaughtered millions of Jews, but usually they will not come straight out and admit it.

Your post is disgraceful. I have never seen ANY poster on this forum even imply that the death of ANY of the minority groups killed by the Nazi's was a trivial thing.

 

Show us just one post! An apology to the forum members will be accepted.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Andaman Al

[Ulysses G.]

Forget it. I  am not going to wade through thousands of old posts. Plenty of long-term members have seen them.

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

Forget it. I  am not going to wade through thousands of old posts. Plenty of long-term members have seen them.

So we just take your word for it? Trumpster disease is getting contagious. Just say what you want and then when asked to prove it ignore it. YOU said it, so back it up or apologise to the TV membership for your disgraceful generalisation. Maybe a good word is 'deplorable'

[GOLDBUGGY]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Perhaps you need to read more carefully or with less bias. Over the years I have seen many examples of both.

In fact , there have been numerous posts where someone came right out and made it obvious that they hate Jews as well as many others where one can easily read between the lines. There are some people out there who could care less that war criminals slaughtered millions of Jews, but usually they will not come straight out and admit it.

I am not Racist at all and I don't don't hate anybody. I have worked all over the world with many different races and maybe this is one reason I am this way. So I hope that is clear enough for you. 

 

You need to get your head out of the clouds and try to understand what the times were like back then and during the 1930's. Times where hard then just to make a living,. Racism ran rampant everywhere and many were blamed for these economic difficulties. It was not viewed back then as it is viewed today. 

 

When Germans were painting the Shop Windows of German Jews, in the Land of the Free in American, and in many States, Black People were not allowed to drink from the same water fountain as a white man was. Or use there Toilets. Or go to school with them. They could ride a Public Bus, if they sat at the back. The KKK was also running rampant during this time and to be honest they didn't care too much for the Jews either. The Indians in Canada were put on Reservations and treated not much better than trash. 

 

It is not that I liked this treatment. This was just the way t was back then.   

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

So we just take your word for it?

 

 

That is up to you. Plenty of other members have commented on these disgusting posts and many were deleted by the moderators. Search all the old threads about Israel and all the old threads about Nazi Germany. There will still be some there. Seek and you shall find.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Andaman Al]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

That is up to you. Plenty of other members have commented on these disgusting posts and many were deleted by the moderators. Search all the old threads about Israel and all the old threads about Nazi Germany. There will still be some there. Seek and you shall find.

I am not searching anything. You have made the claim, now back it up with evidence or retract your comments designed to incite hate.