Support NeoGAF

[Corronchilejano]

Good that he got convicted but I am disappointed by the jail sentence.

Which sentence would've been good for you?

 

[D4Danger]

New information from the process trickled in and I think the argumentation of the ruling is relevant for this discussion. Translation is by me, so if there is anything rough, weird or even wrong, please tell me. I apologize for my limited english, I tried my best, but reading translated hentai only gets me so far. All the quotes are from the judge and taken from this

thanks for doing this

"You were a perfectly normal human, Mr. Gröning [...] You were a trained bank cashier, you did sports, meet people. You had your own mind. Of course there was indoctrionation, but the though procress of people didn't stop. You made your decision. You wanted to be a part. You wanted to belong to the dashing, brisk troup of the SS. That is a decision."

I think that's the really important point some people are missing.

He chose to be part of the SS and their intent was known long before the camps were even set up. You don't need 80 years of hindsight to know what they were doing was evil.

 

[Deified Data]

Actually, it's very far from the literal definition.

They're two words and two concepts for a reason.

They're frequently conflated, but one is to gain satisfaction from doing harm to one that is perceived to do wrong to you.

The other is to do harm to one that has been perceived to do wrong.

The latter leaves out for the purpose of satisfaction. In fact, it ascribes no purpose - and thus as a society we must decide why if at all we punish criminals.

Vengeance is a reason indeed. But in an enlightened society, we recognize that vengeance is a poor reason - and is a fleeting desctructive reason for wanting the harm of others, even if they've been perceived to have done wrong.

Rather, it's more effective to use criminal punishment simply as a tool to reinforce the motivational forces of dissuading rational criminals from causing harm. Irrational criminals are likely to cause harm irrespective of whether or not motivating forces are in place against it. It's more effective then to exercise other methodologies of harm reduction than to try to persuade irrational people with attempts at rational motivations.

Of course, as a society, we could flip the bird to the idea of harm reduction and embrace our baser instincts... but that's a shit show society and you know it.

In what society? Certainly not any democratic and progressive society around today. I know that there are some less than democratic and progressive societies still around that allows the victim or their family to both decide and perform the sentence that could qualify, but I doubt you're thinking about those.

Modern justice is based on deterrence and reform, not vengeance. That's why it makes sure that judges and juries are impartial and why things like cruel and unusual punishments are outlawed. It was in fact created to get away from vengeance as a form om justice.

I have no doubt this trial will deter fellow 94-year-old Nazis from starting up the ol' regime. Disaster averted.

"Progressive", "humane", and "deterrence" are words used to cushion "enlightened" people against hard truth. People uncomfortable with questioning their own motives. I think you're both either naive or willfully ignorant to not see what the public gets out of criminal punishment. You see it in every thread like this. People want their trial, to be sure, but that's never really enough. It's an outlet for emotions that "polite, civilized" people no longer acknowledge.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

He chose to be part of the SS and their intent was known long before the camps were even set up. You don't need 80 years of hindsight to know what they were doing was evil.

If this is the standard for conviction now, that's what seems to cement this as a show trial. If they had done these convictions immediately after the war, they would have had to throw massive segments of the population in prison. Some people in this thread have suggested ideas ranging from "if you worked at a camp" to "if you knew of a camp" as the standard for conviction. If that were so, prisons would have been bulging. In fact, the fact that so many people were associated with the camps in some way is really (as far as I've understood it) part of why at the time, only commanding officers and those who directly did the deeds were charged. They couldn't convict every single person who was a part of this, only those in direct control or contact with the situation. But now that there's only a few of these people left, it's convenient to do it and stick them in a show trial.

 

[Chariot]

If this is the standard for conviction now, that's what seems to cement this as a show trial. If they had done these convictions immediately after the war, they would have had to throw massive segments of the population in prison. Some people in this thread have suggested ideas ranging from "if you worked at a camp" to "if you knew of a camp" as the standard for conviction. If that were so, prisons would have been bulging. In fact, the fact that so many people were associated with the camps in some way is really (as far as I've understood it) part of why at the time, only commanding officers and those who directly did the deeds were charged. They couldn't convict every single person who was a part of this, only those in direct control or contact with the situation. But now that there's only a few of these people left, it's convenient to do it and stick them in a show trial.

It indeed seem to be the standard now. I refer today the verdict snippets.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

It indeed seem to be the standard now. I refer today the verdict snippets.

I mean, I'm fine if that had been the standard seven decades ago. I think it wouldn't have worked and would have created an unstable post-war Germany (also another reason why it probably wasn't done), but if that was decided then, fine. It leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth to create this new standard now that it's convenient.

 

[kitch9]

The nuclear bombs killed approx 250000 civilians in Japan with many of those dying a prolonged suffering death from burns and radiation sickness.

Terrible things happened in that war by people who were following orders with executions common on all sides for those who disobeyed.

Once the war ended the terrible things stopped, I'm struggling to see how some terrible things are punishable through law and some things aren't.

 

[Jarmel]

If this is the standard for conviction now, that's what seems to cement this as a show trial. If they had done these convictions immediately after the war, they would have had to throw massive segments of the population in prison. Some people in this thread have suggested ideas ranging from "if you worked at a camp" to "if you knew of a camp" as the standard for conviction. If that were so, prisons would have been bulging. In fact, the fact that so many people were associated with the camps in some way is really (as far as I've understood it) part of why at the time, only commanding officers and those who directly did the deeds were charged. They couldn't convict every single person who was a part of this, only those in direct control or contact with the situation. But now that there's only a few of these people left, it's convenient to do it and stick them in a show trial.

Stuff like this:

"You were a perfectly normal human, Mr. Gröning [...] You were a trained bank cashier, you did sports, meet people. You had your own mind. Of course there was indoctrination, but the though process of people didn't stop. You made your decision. You wanted to be a part. You wanted to belong to the dashing, brisk troup of the SS. That is a decision."

Feels like total hindsight. Who were the people he was meeting? He made the mistake of living too long and being on the loser's side.

Once the war ended the terrible things stopped, I'm struggling to see how some terrible things are punishable through law and some things aren't.

How beneficial were you to society and which country did you belong to?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

The nuclear bombs killed approx 250000 civilians in Japan with many of those dying a prolonged suffering death from burns and radiation sickness.

Terrible things happened in that war by people who were following orders with executions common on all sides for those who disobeyed.

Once the war ended the terrible things stopped, I'm struggling to see how some terrible things are punishable through law and some things aren't.

Japan is an interesting case as well because 1) Allies obviously weren't prosecuted, 2) the controversial Yamashita Standard and 3) the handling of war criminals, such as their pardoning and sentence reduction.

 

[kitch9]

Japan is an interesting case as well because 1) Allies obviously weren't prosecuted, 2) the controversial Yamashita Standard and 3) the handling of war criminals, such as their pardoning and sentence reduction.

The pilot who dropped the bombs chose to be a pilot, why wasn't he subject to trial?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

The pilot who dropped the bombs chose to be a pilot, why wasn't he subject to trial?

Victor's justice.


We could have convicted any number of people in that situation: the pilots. The ground crew who prepped the plane. The commanding officers. The President. The Manhattan Project workers. The Secretary of War. The list goes on and on.

 

[Robdraggoo]

Watched the BBC doc again. It states that Groening was a known accomplice at the time and was on a list of people involved at Aushwitz but wasn't prosecuted then. In fact he was part of a choir that toured Britain and led a prosperous life after the war. He wasnt even hiding anywhere. They got Eichman in South America for crying out loud.
I dont get it. what was the evidence they were waiting 70 years for?
Not only did he admit to being there and doing what he did years ago, but stated he had no remorse for what he did because he felt, and still feels what he did was the right thing to do.
He did state however, and there is proof that he filed for transfer from Aushwitz to the front lines but was declined by his superiors, So at least he didnt have the stomach for it. but damn, really, he deserves justice, but I cant believe it took them this long to do it.

Once the war ended the terrible things stopped, I'm struggling to see how some terrible things are punishable through law and some things aren't.

tell that to the holocuast survivors being raped by the Russian troups or the countless Jews who never got thier homes or lives back long after the war.

 

[Theonik]

Wernher von Braun is too often romanticized and his past co-operation with the Nazi regime and the use of concentration camp prisoners to build the V-2 rockets is not as well-known as it should be. I too am appalled that the memories of those who suffered and those who died building the V-2 rockets too often go unheard."

I guess he was a "good" nazi... or is it double standards?

Useful Nazis were largely forgiven, as were Japanese war criminals conducting heinous human experimentation on the Chinese population.

In truth, the allies made some mistakes depending on how you look at it in how they handled these cases. On one hand, justice was not served, and one would argue that was never fully the goal but a point had to be made.

On the other hand, by choosing not to punish these individuals, they were able to get something valuable, in terms of their research, collaboration expertise etc that was later useful in the cold war and we are benefiting from even today. Make no mistake that deals were struck.

 

[Jarmel]

Useful Nazis were largely forgiven, as were Japanese war criminals conducting heinous human experimentation on the Chinese population.

In truth, the allies made some mistakes depending on how you look at it in how they handled these cases. On one hand, justice was not served, and one would argue that was never fully the goal but a point had to be made.

On the other hand, by choosing not to punish these individuals, they were able to get something valuable, in terms of their research, collaboration expertise etc that was later useful in the cold war and we are benefiting from even today. Make no mistake that deals were struck.

The Japanese got off super light after WW2.

 

[D4Danger]

The pilot who dropped the bombs chose to be a pilot, why wasn't he subject to trial?

are you really that thick?

 

[kitch9]

tell that to the holocuast survivors being raped by the Russian troups or the countless Jews who never got thier homes or lives back long after the war.

Are trying to say only Russian troops raped people and the people of most major cities within flying distance of the enemy got to move straight back into their homes after the war?

 

[kitch9]

are you really that thick?

No.

I love the mentality that because their side did it everything was OK. Every side did some nasty shit, really nasty shit. The attitude that someone else's shit needs prosecution whilst theirs doesn't befuddled me.

 

[Theonik]

The Japanese got off super light after WW2.

Generally speaking yes. At least when it comes to punishing war criminals. But there are reasons for why either approach was taken. They were probably afraid of public opinion backlash after the nuclear attacks, and there is also the fact that most Japanese war crimes were against Asians the allies really didn't care about as much. Then of course, Japan did receive a very substantial amount of humiliation as part of their surrender.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

The pilot who dropped the bombs chose to be a pilot, why wasn't he subject to trial?

The idea being that dropping the atomic bombs to end a war and save hundreds of thousands of lives is more morally defensible than executing millions of people based on their ethnicity.

 

[Jarmel]

Generally speaking yes. At least when it comes to punishing war criminals. But there are reasons for why either approach was taken. They were probably afraid of public opinion backlash after the nuclear attacks, and there is also the fact that most Japanese war crimes were against Asians the allies really didn't care about as much. Then of course, Japan did receive a very substantial amount of humiliation as part of their surrender.

Apparently not enough, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

Even besides the nukes, the Japanese did suffer through the firebombings and their forces being annihilated. It's just that I'm sure Chinese have a very different take on Japan's treatment compared to Americans. Rightfully so.

 

[danthefan]

At this point I see no point in putting him in jail.

 

[danthefan]

The idea being that dropping the atomic bombs to end a war and save hundreds of thousands of lives is more morally defensible than executing millions of people based on their ethnicity.

Dan Carlin did a great podcast on this, well worth a listen.

 

[deleted]

The killing squads were explicitly offered reassignment before an 'action' as they called them. I think the number was about 12 out of 500 took this option in a certain battalion but similar percentages were found in other groups. I have Ordinary Men next to me now which is my go-to for this kind of stuff. I can dig up the exact wording if you want. The repercussions I saw was when an officer tried to reprimand men for requesting a transfer or shirking the killing duties and he was punished for doing this. I don't know the specifics of this man's position but I suspect he didn't leave because he didn't really want to. He didn't have a moral issue with what he was doing or what he was a part of.

One of the more insidious things the Nazis did was using groups of male Jewish prisoners, known as Sonderkommandos, to operate the crematorium, shoveling the dead bodies and stuff like that. These were the real victims and they or their families would most certainly be killed if they refused. They were usually killed anyway however but groups of them were famous for disrupting operations through sabotage.

In terms of the general public, the Gestapo relied on denunciations from the general public to carry out their work. They were a small force that covered a wide area and they rarely sought out 'dissidents' on their own volition. I watched a documentary where they dug up some Gestapo files (many were destroyed) and found one where the person who was denounced died in a concentration camp. The filmmakers went and found the person who made the denunciation and interviewed her. It was fascinating and heartbreaking since her reasoning for the report was essentially her neighbor was different and weird. I don't remember the name of the documentary and I only watched bits of it but I think it was one of the more famous ones. Unless you were caught blowing up a building, the only trouble you would get into is if your friends, neighbors, or family made a choice to report you.

Thanks for that. We learned much about the war in school, entire years of history class were dedicated to politics, circumstances and casualties of the war, but you only have so much time to go into details and how personal life was affected. I know there is lots of stuff to dive in deeper, but I never took it on me to do so.
I only know about life after the war from my grandparents, since my grandfathers couldn't talk about what happened during that time, so I only know some vague stuff.

 

[PeskyToaster]

No.

I love the mentality that because their side did it everything was OK. Every side did some nasty shit, really nasty shit. The attitude that someone else's shit needs prosecution whilst theirs doesn't befuddled me.

It's an equivalency though. One side was an aggressor and the other was responding. It's why we don't prosecute a killing through self-defense vs. murder. We have decided there are fundamental differences between the two actions. I'm not an expert on this side of the war but the two sides of WWII were vastly different. If any conflict was good vs. evil, it was this one. I don't know how any human being could equate the actions of the Allies with the Axis unless there are serious gaps in their knowledge of what was going on.

 

[kitch9]

The idea being that dropping the atomic bombs to end a war and save hundreds of thousands of lives is more morally defensible than executing millions of people based on their ethnicity.

The dropping of the bombs is still a matter of debate today.

 

[kitch9]

It's an equivalency though. One side was an aggressor and the other was responding. It's why we don't prosecute a killing through self-defense vs. murder. We have decided there are fundamental differences between the two actions. I'm not an expert on this side of the war but the two sides of WWII were vastly different. If any conflict was good vs. evil, it was this one. I don't know how any human being could equate the actions of the Allies with the Axis unless there are serious gaps in their knowledge of what was going on.

Well the reason we were at war was because we didn't agree with others actions in the first place. Japan was losing and making surrender noises when America killed a few hundred thousand, men women and children over a few days.

 

[Robdraggoo]

Are trying to say only Russian troops raped people and the people of most major cities within flying distance of the enemy got to move straight back into their homes after the war?

Nooo, not saying that. But the horrors didnt end when the war did. Thats what I was getting at. Not saying only this or only that.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

The dropping of the bombs is still a matter of debate today.

Maybe, but the point behind dropping the bombs was morally superior to ethnic cleansing.

Well the reason we were at war was because we didn't agree with others actions in the first place. Japan was losing and making surrender noises when America killed a few hundred thousand, men women and children over a few days.

No, certain segments of Japan's government were making surrender noises. The people actually in charge were not.

 

[Principate]

The idea being that dropping the atomic bombs to end a war and save hundreds of thousands of lives is more morally defensible than executing millions of people based on their ethnicity.

That bomb will lead to death of thousands generations after the war that had absolutely nothing to do with the war. Also these are civilians and lives that were killed. The lives it would be saving would be those of soldiers.

It's war a world war at that, but there's a reason why nuclear weapons were never used in such a manner again, because it's that bad.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Maybe, but the point behind dropping the bombs was morally superior to ethnic cleansing.

This is a very poor road of argumentation to go down. The point stands: they're both war crimes of the highest order.

 

[Theonik]

Apparently not enough, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

Even besides the nukes, the Japanese did suffer through the firebombings and their forces being annihilated. It's just that I'm sure Chinese have a very different take on Japan's treatment compared to Americans. Rightfully so.

Like I said, the allies didn't really care about the Chinese.

 

[PeskyToaster]

That bomb will lead to death of thousands generations after the war that had absolutely nothing to do with the war. Also these are civilians and lives that were killed. The lives it would be saving would be those of soldiers.

It's war a world war at that, but there's a reason why nuclear weapons were never used in such a manner again, because it's that bad.

Compared to the conventional weapons being used they actually weren't "that bad" as you say. The firestorms caused much more death and destruction. Someone recommended Logical Insanity above and I agree, it's a necessary listen that gets brought up every time this gets discussed. Like the Germans, the Japanese needed to be stopped or the consequence for those each had occupied would be their total destruction. I think most have made a moral judgement where the lives of an aggressor nation's people aren't on the same standing as the victims when it comes to meting out punishments.

In a more practical sense, who would punish them? The defeated aren't in any position to enforce their will and the victor's consider their actions justified. We don't have an all-high court with the authority to dispense justice like that.

 

[Delta Assault]

Justice delayed is still a form of justice.

Lock him up.

 

[Hisoka]

Guys, prison should be a place to think about what you did, to get your ass kicked and your head banged so you may actually be able to think again, to make yourself better and actually change.

What of this should a 94 year old do? Will he change? With 94? He doesn't need to. No need to change, he could die every Minute. He's far too old for prison. This really helps no one. Fucked up Situation. Should have been lifetime prison before.

Edit: Don't mean he didn't deserve it, he did. But legal action should have striked before.

 

[Principate]

Compared to the conventional weapons being used they actually weren't "that bad" as you say. The firestorms caused much more death and destruction. Someone recommended Logical Insanity above and I agree, it's a necessary listen that gets brought up every time this gets discussed. Like the Germans, the Japanese needed to be stopped or the consequence for those each had occupied would be their total destruction. I think most have made a moral judgement where the lives of an aggressor nation's people aren't on the same standing as the victims when it comes to meting out punishments.

In a more practical sense, who would punish them? The defeated aren't in any position to enforce their will and the victor's consider their actions justified. We don't have an all-high court with the authority to dispense justice like that.

The war was basically won. It was a matter of when rather than if. Japan was last major force left and it was entirely corned. It's simply the fact Japanese where very entrenched and a land invasion would be anything but easy (not when they're willing take you down at the cost of their own lives,.but Still let's not brush aside the civilian causalities here.

Typically you tend to avoid civilian causalities at all costs for good reason, they didn't necessary choose to lay down their lives for their country or believe in the ideals of ruling governmnet. If it were any other kid of war and America had lost, they'd have been rightfully demonized also. That's how things go. It's why it'll forever remain a point of contention.

 

[Alavard]

Justice delayed is still a form of justice.

Lock him up.

I think that depends on what your definition of justice is.

After all, he has no chance of re-offending, isn't a risk to the public, and doesn't require rehabilitation. All that's left is punishment. Is that enough? I'm not sure.

 

[Oersted]

I think that depends on what your definition of justice is.

After all, he has no chance of re-offending, isn't a risk to the public, and doesn't require rehabilitation. All that's left is punishment. Is that enough? I'm not sure.

If you think it is just about punishment you are abhorrently wrong. The Holocaust was one of the biggest crimes in history. That atleast some, who helped make it happen, have to face trial is a success. A late, way too rare success, but still a success.

 

[kitch9]

Maybe, but the point behind dropping the bombs was morally superior to ethnic cleansing.



No, certain segments of Japan's government were making surrender noises. The people actually in charge were not.

Only in your own head, maybe due to a touch of bias and positive propaganda.

The US had done little testing on the effects of radiation, and were still learning 10 years later when they made a real mess during testing.

Vast amounts of money was spent on developing the bomb and the Russian bear needed caging, maybe it could be debated that a weak Japan with little fight left was an expendable target in the pursuit of that.

The Japanese were done, they knew it, everyone knew it. Their code of honour was breaking and they would have given up.

 

[legend166]

The dropping of the bombs is still a matter of debate today.

Sure, but the Holocaust isn't.

 

[legend166]

Only in your own head, maybe due to a touch of bias and positive propaganda.

The US had done little testing on the effects of radiation, and were still learning 10 years later when they made a real mess during testing.

Vast amounts of money was spent on developing the bomb and the Russian bear needed caging, maybe it could be debated that a weak Japan with little fight left was an expendable target in the pursuit of that.

The Japanese were done, they knew it, everyone knew it. Their code of honour was breaking and they would have given up.

The idea that Japan would have given up is not clear at all. And it certainly wasn't clear in 1945.

Why does every thread about WWII devolve into a debate about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why are people so desperate to draw a moral equivalence between the Axis and the Western Allies? I don't understand it.

 

[lawnchair]

Sure, but the Holocaust isn't.

but what should happen to people who participated in it clearly is!

 

[nicoga3000]

I understand the situation, but I cannot agree with the sentence on any level.

 

[mr jones]

I understand the situation, but I cannot agree with the sentence on any level.

Nor can I. Justice isn't being served here. Let him go.

 

[Snaku]

What a fucking farce.

 

[Corronchilejano]

If you think it is just about punishment you are abhorrently wrong. The Holocaust was one of the biggest crimes in history. That atleast some, who helped make it happen, have to face trial is a success. A late, way too rare success, but still a success.

If its not about punishment, what is it about? Are the victims getting closure for a man no one has named directly?

 

[Chariot]

I understand the situation, but I cannot agree with the sentence on any level.

Nor can I. Justice isn't being served here. Let him go.

He still got the chance that the stste prosecution decides that he don't have to serve his time because of his health. I think the accusers wouldn't mind either. They straight up stated that it was less about him than about the general message that nobody ever gets away with such an atrocity.

 

[Oersted]

If its not about punishment, what is it about? Are the victims getting closure for a man no one has named directly?

What? Do you have a point?

To spell it out again:

Holocaust is one of the biggest crimes in human history. A working justice system should find those who are responsible for one of the biggest crimes in history, and let them face trial. To face the past, something Germany very much refused.

That should be the most basic thing in a legal system.

As a matter of fact, that you even ask this question scares me.

 

[Tavares4Life]

There was a simular discussion in the thread about the Baltimore riots. How innocent is the average White American that not only benifits from a system of ingrained racial discrimination, but continues to turn a blind eye to the murders of unarmed black men by the police?

Competely innocent, its not everyones jobs to police there own race, you can't expect every white person to 'check there privilege'. Also this thread has nothing to do with white and black reletions, stay on topic.

On topic, I find it conflicting charging a man on the brink of death with crimes 50 years ago under a fascist state. Seems more of a media image move then a real justice one.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

That bomb will lead to death of thousands generations after the war that had absolutely nothing to do with the war. Also these are civilians and lives that were killed. The lives it would be saving would be those of soldiers.

How many soldiers (many of whom were forced into service) is a civilian worth?

Only in your own head, maybe due to a touch of bias and positive propaganda.

The US had done little testing on the effects of radiation, and were still learning 10 years later when they made a real mess during testing.

Vast amounts of money was spent on developing the bomb and the Russian bear needed caging, maybe it could be debated that a weak Japan with little fight left was an expendable target in the pursuit of that.

The Japanese were done, they knew it, everyone knew it. Their code of honour was breaking and they would have given up.

There is nothing beyond wishful thinking that indicates that they were about to surrender. The majority of the actual leadership was determined to keep fighting even after the first bomb dropped and the USSR declared war; it took the second bomb to even get the cabinet to a 3-3 deadlock. And after Hirihoto personally intervened to break it in favor of surrender, there were no less then three separate coups to try and stop it.

Your flaw is that you presume Japan was a rational actor at the time. The Japanese "were done" for years at that point, undeniably after the disaster at Midway where Japan lost nearly its entire navy in a matter of a few days. The US wanted to end the war as soon as possible, and Japan was demanding terms that would not only do nothing to achieve stability and peace in the region, but would likely have the opposite effect.

This is a very poor road of argumentation to go down. The point stands: they're both war crimes of the highest order.

The US ended a four-year long war in a matter of days with a relatively tiny amount of human cost. What else would you have had the US do under these circumstances? Wait for the Soviets to invade mainland Japan as they assured they would? Allow Japan to make a conditional surrender that would cause another war with in a decade? Invade the mainland and have a situation where little girls with sticks go up against trained and battle-hardened US soldiers with full military assault weaponry and get slaughtered? I always hear these complaints, but nobody ever poses a real alternative that would be somehow more ethical.

The Holocaust and the dropping of the atomic bombs aren't comparable in the slightest.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Double