Support NeoGAF

[SArcher]

"Give me liberty, or give me death." Clearly wasn't in his thought process.

So you're saying he should have gotten himself executed?

 

[WanderingWind]

So do you hold every single German culpable for the Holocaust? What about the civilians who built weapons and supplies for the soldiers?

Hell, what about the Americans who actively lent money to Germany before they started their attacks? Arent our banks culpable as well for helping Hitler? That probably helped Nazi Germany far more then this single guy ever did.

Nah, just SS guards who worked at death camps. You can't have a genocide clock without cogs, both big and small. His wasn't even an insubstantial part of the machine, as his job required him to steal money from prisoners to fund further atrocities. He did that so well that he got a nickname. People saying "he was an accountant" are sort of missing the fact that you can be an account and also other things.

This guy was an account and a willing accomplice in war crimes.

EDIT: Got that last part wrong. He did eventually fess up to his role at Auschwitz.

 

[Veritigo_X]

no, it doesnt. but they still could not prove any relation between his accounting and the holocaust in the 80s. and that's that.
if you want to put people in jail witthout proof, just because of hearsay or based on what you think is likely, then go ahead. I don't approve but it's exactly what is happening here now.

I don't think anyone should be jailed if there's no evidence, but I think there's enough evidence to at least move forward with a trial.

So do you hold every single German culpable for the Holocaust? What about the civilians who built weapons and supplies for the soldiers?

Hell, what about the Americans who actively lent money to Germany before they started their attacks? Arent our banks culpable as well for helping Hitler? That probably helped Nazi Germany far more then this single guy ever did.

All those examples are far removed from an SS guard working steps away from people being murdered.

 

[King_Moc]

While there's not much point imprisoning hi, they've got to do something. Or is there a cut off age where all wrongs are forgiven and I just missed the memo?

I would argue that survivors of the holocaust should get a say on whether or not it's a waste of money.

Victims should never get a say. It's impossible for them to show any objectivity and you'd end up with completely random sentencing depending on who was wronged.

 

[Jarate]

Henry Ford on Antisemtism

Yeah, our history is rife with Antisemitism, especially among important figures, and you can bet your ass there were a lot of Nazi supporters among our Government before Pearl Harbor happened.

 

[Bisnic]

Why did they wait until he was nearly dead to put him on trial? They couldn't do that decades ago?

 

[Wanderer5]

My guess is that he'll be acquitted, which is a rarity for SS concentration camp guards. But if he technically wasn't killing, torturing, or commanding other vile acts (claims to be in logistics) then he will be set free.

This should have been resolved much earlier but it is what it is

Seem like it was kind of resolved back in the 80s?

There hardly seem to be any point now for this trial outside of some unnecessary vengeance.

 

[Aske]

For sure...I absolutely agree that there are some out there that would and possibly have forgiven. That's up to them. My opinions are simply that, and frankly I wouldn't want my opinion on the matter to have any impact on anyone that survived the atrocity.

It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that we could sort of shrug and say "well, what's done is done and you're old now" to a Nazi.

What's a Nazi? An active modern-day supporter of the ideals of the German National Socialist party from the first half of the 20th century? Someone who used to support them? A soldier who fought for them?

He's not a Nazi any more. Even if he is, I wouldn't punish him for thought crimes.

If he knowingly and willingly murdered people, I don't care how old he is; seeking justice is of great symbolic and cultural importance. But if he was just a German trapped in a bubble of ignorance, seduced by propaganda, who merely did what he believed was right before realizing he was caught up in horrors over which he had absolutely no control; a guy who worked for a regime that would have executed him for disobeying their orders had he resisted...I wouldn't consider him guilty of anything but being in the worst possible place at the worst possible time in history. If anything, I'd consider him another victim.

 

[Corronchilejano]

Should they be doing the same, forgiving a lot of mexican cartel members doing the killings/violence down in Mexico, because of "fear"?

You can't be serious. You don't choose where you're born or how you're raised. You can choose to join a cartel. Having a whole country pushing you over the edge is different than a gang of people doing so.

I can't answer any of those first three questions, hopefully the trial will be able to do so. I just don't agree with the idea that he should be let off for his crimes because of his age. I want him to have a fair trial and be punished appropriately. Also, I question the idea that "all of those wounds have probably healed."

I don't think he'd be let off due to his age, rather why has it taken so long for him to go to trial, and who's conducting it.

And yes, guess the trial will make his influence on other people's pain surface.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Yeah, our history is rife with Antisemitism, especially among important figures, and you can bet your ass there were a lot of Nazi supporters among our Government before Pearl Harbor happened.

A lot of those same wealthy US people were the types to buy into ethnic cleansing literature and padded their pockets with the ill gotten wealth confiscated from the German government. There are a whole lot of finance types that should be held to the fire and put on trial.

 

[Moff]

I don't think anyone should be jailed if there's no evidence, but I think there's enough evidence to at least move forward with a trial

that's not what this is about, though.
he had his trial in the 80s, there was no evidence.

there is still no evidence, what has changed though is the trial of John Demjanjuk in 2011, who was in a similiar position as Gröning. there was also no evidence against him, but the judge still put him in jail simply because he worked in a concentration camp. it was a first because there was no evidence at all that he participated in any crime. and now they roll up the case against Gröning, doing the same. and I simply don't approve. because like you, I think no one should be jailed witthout evidence.

 

[DOG3NZAKA]

By now, what's the point? Justice? Look at the guy.

This is a waste of time

 

[Omegasquash]

I agree that a symbolic case wouldn't be such a bad idea.

On the topic of following laws though, I just want to point to my earlier post:

Perhaps I'm getting a bit too far off topic though because, as you are correctly stating, (and regardless of whether or not they are justified) the laws do exist, and we have plenty of precedence to follow them.

Your earlier post makes lots of sense. Our laws are (typically) in place to serve societies best interests, and I admit freely that it really wouldn't serve society's best interest (globally, or even on a geographical community level). He's 94, and incapable of causing anyone else any physical harm for all intents and purposes.

It's obvious to me that I'd need to familiarize myself with lots more details to strengthen my opinion one way or another though, subjectively...Christ, man.

 

[Jarate]

Nah, just SS guards who worked at death camps. You can't have a genocide clock without cogs, both big and small. His wasn't even an insubstantial part of the machine, as his job required him to steal money from prisoners to fund further atrocities. He did that so well that he got a nickname. People saying "he was an accountant" are sort of missing the fact that you can be an account and also other things.

This guy was an account and a willing accomplice in war crimes.

EDIT: Got that last part wrong.

So let's just assume that as you said he might have done, let's just say he realized the errors of his way (which he apparently did) and asked to be moved, and thus was unable to be transferred (this is common, as he was a person during the latter parts of the war where Germany's infrastructure was slowly falling apart) and apparently this did happen

So what now? Does he run away, how would other countries react to a German running into their country that they are at war with? He can try to hide in the country, but then he's seen as a traitor and most likely killed on the spot or ratted on by a populace of propaganda filled zealots.


We can sit here all day an incriminate everyone involved, but there comes a point where simple human logic and understanding have to come in too. He basically was told to take money from prisoners bags and siphon it back to Germany (which is by far one of the most common practices in the history of war).

You can call him a coward, a nazi, and all these other things, but the courts shouldnt be able to prosecute someone for being those things, they should prosecute him for acts that are deemed to be against some type of war crime, what he seemingly did (barring any type of unknown evidence we dont have) was something that he was assigned too and stuck to doing. Unless he actively killed someone, or helped in the killing of people directly, then his fault lies in being stuck in the responsibilities of a soldier, especially because a lot of SS soldiers had no clue what they were getting themselves into.

 

[Butt_Sanchez]

This may be answered already but, why wasn't he incarcerated long before he was 94?
His actions are horrible and the man belongs in jail, but why did it take this long, was he in hiding or something?

 

[Wanderer5]

that's not what this is about, though.
he had his trial in the 80s, there was no evidence.

there is still no evidence, what has changed though is the trial of John Demjanjuk in 2011, who was in a similiar position as Gröning. there was also no evidence against him, but the judge still put him in jail simply because he worked in a concentration camp. it was a first because there was no evidence at all that he participated in any crime. and now they roll up the case against Gröning, doing the same. and I simply don't approve. because like you, I think no one should be jailed witthout evidence.

Christ this is really going to end up stupid isn't it. I sure hope he gets a fair judgement and be let go of such charges if there no evidence still.

 

[SenorArdilla]

Nah, just SS guards who worked at death camps. You can't have a genocide clock without cogs, both big and small. His wasn't even an insubstantial part of the machine, as his job required him to steal money from prisoners to fund further atrocities. He did that so well that he got a nickname. People saying "he was an accountant" are sort of missing the fact that you can be an account and also other things.

This guy was an account and a willing accomplice in war crimes.

EDIT: Got that last part wrong. He did eventually fess up to his role at Auschwitz.

So was this guy an accountant?

 

[Moff]

This may be answered already but, why wasn't he incarcerated long before he was 94?
His actions are horrible and the man belongs in jail, but why did it take this long, was he in hiding or something?

there have been trials, but they were discontinued because they found no evidence for any crimes.
he is now put on trial again because in 2011, another man in a similiar position, could be put in jail without any evidence, so they are now trying it again with this one.

 

[PanicFreak]

I just wish there was the same justice for Soviet war criminals.

Winners aren't criminals bruh.

Spoiler

/obvious s

Spoiler

What would BJ Blazkowicz do?

Fuck him. Nazi scum. Normally I'd say let it go but Nazism is the special exception. Master race that wanted to rule the world for all eternity? You get to be pursued by the wheels of justice for all eternity.

This times a thousand. You all could learn something from Don't Be A Sucker.

I doubt that he knew exactly what was going on in Auschwitz prior to enlisting. He probably knew about as much as the Allied forces knew when they stumbled upon those camps (i.e., nothing).

I love the Wolfenstein joke though.

 

[John Kowalski]

there have been trials, but they were discontinued because they found no evidence for any crimes.
he is now put on trial again because in 2011, another man in a similiar position, could be put in jail without any evidence, so they are now trying it again with this one.

There's no evidence that he was an accessory to the murders?

 

[Veritigo_X]

that's not what this is about, though.
he had his trial in the 80s, there was no evidence.

there is still no evidence, what has changed though is the trial of John Demjanjuk in 2011, who was in a similiar position as Gröning. there was also no evidence against him, but the judge still put him in jail simply because he worked in a concentration camp. it was a first because there was no evidence at all that he participated in any crime. and now they roll up the case against Gröning, doing the same. and I simply don't approve. because like you, I think no one should be jailed witthout evidence.

Do you have any sources on the trial in the 80s? If he already stood trial and was found innocent I don't think there should be another trial. I'm having a hard time finding anything besides a Washington Post article saying charges were dropped sometime in the 80s.

 

[Jarate]

All those examples are far removed from an SS guard working steps away from people being murdered.

Are you saying German citizens literally building machine guns and tanks used to kill people and help further push the Nazis into being able to control areas of large jewish populations are far removed from a guy who happened to work at a place that was terrible.

Im sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, I would think those citizens are way more culpable then this guy ever was. Especially because the money he probably would receive would be incredibly small quantities.

Let's just say instead of working in Auschwitz he worked at a camp with POW's that were eventually transferred to aushwitz? He did the same exact task as he did at auschwitz, but was far removed from the area, is he thus clean of this?

 

[Hip Hop]

You can't be serious. You don't choose where you're born or how you're raised. You can choose to join a cartel. Having a whole country pushing you over the edge is different than a gang of people doing so.

I'd say it's similar, just on a smaller scale.

Influenced by your surroundings, culture, no where else to go. Sure, you can not join if you wanted to, but then you have a chance of being victimized with no backing, or no money going your way too. After you are in it, behind into it deeply, there is no backing out now, because again, you will be victimized. All ways being out of "fear'.

But we're going out of topic here, so I'll just drop it.

 

[WanderingWind]

So let's just assume that as you said he might have done, let's just say he realized the errors of his way (which he apparently did) and asked to be moved, and thus was unable to be transferred (this is common, as he was a person during the latter parts of the war where Germany's infrastructure was slowly falling apart) and apparently this did happen

So what now? Does he run away, how would other countries react to a German running into their country that they are at war with? He can try to hide in the country, but then he's seen as a traitor and most likely killed on the spot or ratted on by a populace of propaganda filled zealots.


We can sit here all day an incriminate everyone involved, but there comes a point where simple human logic and understanding have to come in too. He basically was told to take money from prisoners bags and siphon it back to Germany (which is by far one of the most common practices in the history of war).

You can call him a coward, a nazi, and all these other things, but the courts shouldnt be able to prosecute someone for being those things, they should prosecute him for acts that are deemed to be against some type of war crime, what he seemingly did (barring any type of unknown evidence we dont have) was something that he was assigned too and stuck to doing. Unless he actively killed someone, or helped in the killing of people directly, then his fault lies in being stuck in the responsibilities of a soldier, especially because a lot of SS soldiers had no clue what they were getting themselves into.

Bull. SS troops were not the everyday conscripted foot soldiers. He knew exactly what he was getting into. The reality of it hit home, if we are to believe the word of an SS death camp guard years after the fact.

And point of clarification, I'm not calling him a Nazi. He was a Nazi. This is not a slur or a point of contention. It is fact.

 

[Moff]

Do you have any sources on the trial in the 80s? If he already stood trial and was found innocent I don't think there should be another trial. I'm having a hard time finding anything besides a Washington Post article saying charges were dropped sometime in the 80s.

yes the charges were dropped. there was no trial. I mixed that up. he apparently didn't even know there were charges.
it's also in the german link in the OP.

 

[Novocaine]

I mean if it was someone like Goebbels I'd be for it but this dude was just a luggage inspector. Let him go, he's going to die soon anyway.

 

[PeskyToaster]

So let's just assume that as you said he might have done, let's just say he realized the errors of his way (which he apparently did) and asked to be moved, and thus was unable to be transferred (this is common, as he was a person during the latter parts of the war where Germany's infrastructure was slowly falling apart) and apparently this did happen

So what now? Does he run away, how would other countries react to a German running into their country that they are at war with? He can try to hide in the country, but then he's seen as a traitor and most likely killed on the spot or ratted on by a populace of propaganda filled zealots.


We can sit here all day an incriminate everyone involved, but there comes a point where simple human logic and understanding have to come in too. He basically was told to take money from prisoners bags and siphon it back to Germany (which is by far one of the most common practices in the history of war).

You can call him a coward, a nazi, and all these other things, but the courts shouldnt be able to prosecute someone for being those things, they should prosecute him for acts that are deemed to be against some type of war crime, what he seemingly did (barring any type of unknown evidence we dont have) was something that he was assigned too and stuck to doing. Unless he actively killed someone, or helped in the killing of people directly, then his fault lies in being stuck in the responsibilities of a soldier, especially because a lot of SS soldiers had no clue what they were getting themselves into.

The bolded could not be more wrong. I've seen the orders myself, I've read the speeches given to soldiers, I've read the letters and diaries of soldiers commenting on it. The documentation is out there and it's difficult after reading it to absolve almost anybody of guilt.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

I find this to be somewhat pointless. He’s 94, if he’s lucky he maybe has another ten years to live. Everyone should face justice, but this is too late. Personally, I think it’s a waste of resources and time that could be better spent in other areas of the criminal justice system.

At 94 every day you live past that is pretty much luck.

 

[Nose Master]

He's a terrible monster, sure. But what's the point of doing it now? It's not like they're just going to shit a 94-year old man into a normal prison. It'll be like a rest home with more iron bars in it for the last year or so of his life. Waste of money.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Are you saying German citizens literally building machine guns and tanks used to kill people and help further push the Nazis into being able to control areas of large jewish populations are far removed from a guy who happened to work at a place that was terrible.

Im sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, I would think those citizens are way more culpable then this guy ever was. Especially because the money he probably would receive would be incredibly small quantities.

Let's just say instead of working in Auschwitz he worked at a camp with POW's that were eventually transferred to aushwitz? He did the same exact task as he did at auschwitz, but was far removed from the area, is he thus clean of this?

The German citizens building machine guns were participating in traditional warfare same as British citizens building machine guns. The fact that he was SS actually working at Auschwitz is why I think he should stand trial. Guards working at POW camps weren't participating in mass murder as far as I'm aware.

yes the charges were dropped. there was no trial. I mixed that up. he apparently didn't even know there were charges.
it's also in the german link in the OP.

Oh, I skipped over that since I can't read German. I just think being an SS guard at Auschwitz is enough evidence to at least make him stand trial, even if he is 94. It was a mistake not to hold that trial in the 80s.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

It should be noted that before German soldiers became SS they most likely wouldn't have knowledge of the death camps. They were secret. This guy wouldn't have found out until he started working there, which is also when he applied for a transfer and was denied.

 

[old manatee]

Part of the reason why you throw someone in jail is because there is a public interest in justice being done. No justice can ever heal the wounds of what happened and no incarceration of a 94 year old man can ever truly be in the public interest.

he may be a monster, but if you really want to do justice to him, imagine him suffering for eternity in your denominational version of the unpleasant afterlife

Nah. I'd rather know he died in jail here in the real world.

 

[Corronchilejano]

He's a terrible monster, sure.

As far as I know (and read), there's 0 evidence he did anything.

 

[Omegasquash]

Victims should never get a say. It's impossible for them to show any objectivity and you'd end up with completely random sentencing depending on who was wronged.

Technically, legally, and even morally you are correct. I did a poor job in communicating, there. What I was trying to express was that the opinion of a survivor in this case is worth WAY more than mine, or anyone that wasn't affected in some small way.

 

[Jarate]

Bull. SS troops were not the everyday conscripted foot soldiers. He knew exactly what he was getting into. The reality of it hit home, if we are to believe the word of an SS death camp guard years after the fact.

And point of clarification, I'm not calling him a Nazi. He was a Nazi. This is not a slur or a point of contention. It is fact.

German Propaganda made sure a lot of the atrocities the Germans committed were never seen the light of day by people living there. A lot of Germans saw the "Jews" as scapegoats for a post WW1 world where German reperations made Germany a living hell to live in. If it wasnt for the US funding the Germans with loans, Germany most likely would have literally starved to death. Hitler gained a lot of fame due to pointing out these racial scapegoats, and used that too push his German ideal, the "aryan race" if you will

So let's just say you're a young kid, and you've bought into Nazi propaganda against the Jews, and are in fact a antisemite, a racist, and have a "pure" aryan bloodline, and decide to join the SS because you want to help restore german glory. Remember, pre-WW1 Germany was probably the most powerful land army in the world at the time, and was a beacon of culture and arts. so you join the SS during the latter part of the war, and end up in Auschwitz, where you see mass genocide happening. You ask to transfer but are denied, and thus you are stuck at this horrible place. What do you do in this situation?

He is a Nazi, he was an antisemite, he was a racist, he might very well still be those things, but being those things arent against the law. It's trying to figure out how culpable he was for the mass genocide at Auschwitz.

Let's say we removed him from Auschwitz, would suddenly the entire operation get hurt or slowed down due to him leaving? The answer to that should be quite simple. Unless we can find him culpable in decision making at Auschwitz (which considering he was the lowest rank an SS officer can have I doubt that would be the case), or if he can actively was committing the killings in Auschwitz.

He's a terrible person for ever being a part of that army, but we as a western society dont judge horrible people for being horrible people, we judge them for the acts theyve committed. And given the evidence we do have, his acts are basically negligible at auschwitz and he was not related in any way to the killings of people.

Would your mind suddenly change if he did the same exact thing but at a train stop away from Auschwitz? or if it was before the entered the trains?

The only theoretical crime we have evidence to push against him is the fact that he "stole" money from the prisoners. But if we judge him for this, we'd have to throw a metric shit ton of people who worked at POW camps or handled enemy civilians/soldiers who would do the same thing.

The bolded could not be more wrong. I've seen the orders myself, I've read the speeches given to soldiers, I've read the letters and diaries of soldiers commenting on it. The documentation is out there and it's difficult after reading it to absolve almost anybody of guilt.

Once again, German propaganda made sure things like the death camps at Auschwitz weren't known about by the general populace. Yes, it is very likely he was a massive anti-semite and a massive racist at the time. But those aren't crimes.

 

[Althane]

Technically, legally, and even morally you are correct. I did a poor job in communicating, there. What I was trying to express was that the opinion of a survivor in this case is worth WAY more than mine, or anyone that wasn't affected in some small way.

Why? You're able to be more objective than they are, specifically BECAUSE of the lack of impact to you. That will, arguably, allow you to be more just than the survivor.

(Want to point out that this is a serious question, not be trying to bait or anything)

 

[twobear]

Vengeance mostly.

how is operating the due legal process vengeance? that's justice, not vengeance.

 

[PeskyToaster]

German Propaganda made sure a lot of the atrocities the Germans committed were never seen the light of day by people living there. A lot of Germans saw the "Jews" as scapegoats for a post WW1 world where German reperations made Germany a living hell to live in. If it wasnt for the US funding the Germans with loans, Germany most likely would have literally starved to death. Hitler gained a lot of fame due to pointing out these racial scapegoats, and used that too push his German ideal, the "aryan race" if you will

So let's just say you're a young kid, and you've bought into Nazi propaganda against the Jews, and are in fact a antisemite, a racist, and have a "pure" aryan bloodline, and decide to join the SS because you want to help restore german glory. Remember, pre-WW1 Germany was probably the most powerful land army in the world at the time, and was a beacon of culture and arts. so you join the SS during the latter part of the war, and end up in Auschwitz, where you see mass genocide happening. You ask to transfer but are denied, and thus you are stuck at this horrible place. What do you do in this situation?

He is a Nazi, he was an antisemite, he was a racist, he might very well still be those things, but being those things arent against the law. It's trying to figure out how culpable he was for the mass genocide at Auschwitz.

Let's say we removed him from Auschwitz, would suddenly the entire operation get hurt or slowed down due to him leaving? The answer to that should be quite simple. Unless we can find him culpable in decision making at Auschwitz (which considering he was the lowest rank an SS officer can have I doubt that would be the case), or if he can actively was committing the killings in Auschwitz.

He's a terrible person for ever being a part of that army, but we as a western society dont judge horrible people for being horrible people, we judge them for the acts theyve committed. And given the evidence we do have, his acts are basically negligible at auschwitz and he was not related in any way to the killings of people.

Would your mind suddenly change if he did the same exact thing but at a train stop away from Auschwitz? or if it was before the entered the trains?

The only theoretical crime we have evidence to push against him is the fact that he "stole" money from the prisoners. But if we judge him for this, we'd have to throw a metric shit ton of people who worked at POW camps or handled enemy civilians/soldiers who would do the same thing.

I feel like you're arguing that because so many people were accomplices in a genocide we shouldn't punish them. The machine needed men like him to just do their jobs. He's just as guilty as the rest.

 

[Fried Food]

If he as "reformed" as he lets on, he should gladly accept his punishment.

 

[Chariot]

A bit more for context: he is trying his best and answers about the crimes without hesitationn, despite not in best health. One trial day had to be ended early because his health was dropping.

Also: The SS was a big organisation and not eveything was elite there. It was responsible for a lot of areas, from military actions over inner security (Gestapo) and structural administration (KZs and settlements for example). However he stated that he knew very well what was going on in Auschwitz. At least we can assume that everybody there knew that all the people that came in and never got out weren't thrown into a StarGate

Furthermore: the prosecution isn't aiming for him personally, they want to send a message, that even the small cogs are cogs of the machine. The secondary prosection stated outright in an interview that they rather have him going to schools and tell the kids what happened, but that they can't get a criminal of that time get away.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I remember this guy, he was in at least one documentary I saw from the BBC a while back. I always assumed the whole point of dragging near corpses out of their wheelchairs so they can die after a week in jail was intended to send a message that war crimes not only had no statute of limitations but that every effort will be taken to enforce these laws and you will never escape. It's near impossible to feel sorry for these guys, but to some extent once the more major players were caught and these people become less and less competent it starts to feel like trying to squeeze justice from a stone. Whether this is an effective deterrent, I defer to anyone with actual evidence, but anecdotally I haven't noticed genocide slipping too far down on the to-do lists of tyrants.

What if he survives those 3 years and comes out a more hardened, violent danger to society?

Well, I laughed

 

[Omegasquash]

Why? You're able to be more objective than they are, specifically BECAUSE of the lack of impact to you. That will, arguably, allow you to be more just than the survivor.

(Want to point out that this is a serious question, not be trying to bait or anything)

I'm talking about the waste of money, exclusively. Far, far less a question of justice in that case, I think.

 

[rokkerkory]

I hope he lives a long life with terrible sense of what he did.

 

[Hex]

I will completely remember this thread when many of you are spouting off about sentences being unfari or the death penalty being inhumane.

 

[Jarate]

I feel like you're arguing that because so many people were accomplices in a genocide we shouldn't punish them. The machine needed men like him to just do their jobs. He's just as guilty as the rest.

So like I said, you think that everyone who was involved with the war was culpable and an accomplice, so would you prosectue every German civilian who worked to build the armies and the buildings for the war? Would you prosecute our political leaders and banks who actively gave money to Hitler to help fund his war efforts?

Luckily the law doesnt (shouldnt) work that way. We have to find out if he was in fact the reason why people were killed. And unless he took part in those decisions or actively took a rile in the killings then he's innocent. Let's just say he was able to transfer out of Auschwitz. Are there human lives that would have been spared had he not stayed there?

 

[Chariot]

I hope he lives a long life with terrible sense of what he did.

Well, he already did. 94 years is pretty old. He had to live with the memories for 70 years.

 

[Josh7289]

People in this thread are thinking in such short timescales. One human lifespan is not much time. Saying that the crimes of the Holocaust are not worth prosecuting anymore because they happened about one human lifespan ago essentially means that no matter what the atrocity, as soon as it exits living memory, it's not worth remembering anymore. How can you say it's okay to forget the Holocaust? Not only for the sake of the victims of it, but for the present and future as well, if we forget it we're bound to repeat it or something similar.

A man who allegedly perpetrated the Holocaust is alive and has never officially paid his debt to society for his crimes, should he owe one. This trial is necessary.

 

[Althane]

I'm talking about the waste of money, exclusively. Far, far less a question of justice in that case, I think.

Ah. In that case, what does their opinion matter vs. yours?

 

[Africanus]

I hope he lives a long life with terrible sense of what he did.

He's had a literal lifetime of reflection.

 

[Nabbis]

Lovely way of wasting tax payers money.