shadowhunter89
Banned
Seems like a big waste of money, he's 94 years old, he lived his life. He probably wont last much longer.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Up: 94 year old former SS-Guard convicted for Auschwitz
- Thread starter Chariot
- Start date
- Status
nobody here is saying that
velociraptor
Junior Member
While his actions were deplorable, what threat does a 94 year old pose to the world? Seriously? Waste of time, waste of money.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I have no problem with this trial even now, I think its important that we not forget this stuff. If anything I think the problem is the opposite: I think we rely a bit too much on the fact that we still care about what the Nazi's did as a way to kind of internally deflect other atrocities. I want other genocidal or horrific historical crimes given the same long term attention that the holocaust was
That seems more of a punishment for his family than him.
I realize I'm creating a straw man there, but my point is that saying we shouldn't bring a man allegedly responsible for perpetrating the Holocaust to trial is absurd.
We'll find out if he's guilty or not soon. But this trial is necessary to determine that.
DoktorEvil
Banned
No one has said such a thing in this thread. Any group or body committing ethnic atrocities should pay dearly for their role, big or small.
But, if he was found innocent for wartime atrocities in a previous trial, why the continuance to prosecute and pursue the man, especially when he has made attempts to atone.
Veritigo_X
Member
He wasn't found innocent in a previous trial. This will be the first time he's stood trial.
Moff
Member
he was in the SS, not the army, he also had free will, he asked to be replaced, but he was denied.
benjipwns
Banned
So much for innocent until proven guilty I guess. The state can just go around accusing people of being part of the Holocaust.
PeskyToaster
Member
Our law does work like that though. It's how we toppled organized crime in America. The guys only giving orders aren't safe and the guys following them aren't either.
Your thinking is why denazification efforts ultimately failed. The Nuremberg Trials got the top Nazis and the rest breathed a sigh of relief. It's a postwar myth that the German populace were brainwashed and hoodwinked by Hitler and he did all this stuff behind their backs. He did it with their, many times enthusiastic, support. I've read of crowds gathering and cheering as people, their former neighbors, were taken away to concentration camps. I don't expect everyone to go to prison but I still condemn their actions. We also cannot forget Aryanization efforts which gave the homes, shops, and valuables of the victims to their neighbors and the slave labor which powered the German war machine.
Yeah, no evidence used to mean something.
I thought it didnt go to trial because there wasnt enough evidence back in the 80s, but in 2011 someone was convicted for working there and this is why this is getting rolled back up?
Omegasquash
Member
"Matter" in the sense that sentencing or money should be spent? That's up to the court. Against my opinion, I respect theirs on the subject more than even my own. They were touched, directly impacted by the atrocity that occurred.
"I was there, my family was murdered, and I really don't think it's a waste of money" vs. "It's a waste of money" coming from someone that wasn't affected. I think the former is going to carry more weight in conversation, don't you?
Yep, everyone should be reading Arendt instead of calling the head of a 94 year old man.
Here you go boys http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143039881/?tag=neogaf0e-20
benjipwns
Banned
Unless I'm reading it wrong the complaint isn't about him not getting a trial, it's about him only facing three years in prison. At age 94.
They want a longer sentence.
Veritigo_X
Member
If they find no evidence in this trial then he should be found innocent. I don't think an SS guard at Auschwitz should live life without facing a trial for his actions.
Were concentration camps well known by the German populace? Everything Ive read on the time period has stated that Concentration Camps with mass deaths wasnt known by the general populace, but then again new evidence can be brought it
And those people involved with the mafia are much different then soldiers in war.
Read the articles in the op, then read the rest of the thread.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Send him to Israel..I'm sure they'll figure out a suitable punishment..
In the objective sense, no, it shouldn't, assuming that the "Waste of money" is backed up with reasoned arguments.
In an overall social conversation, I get what you are saying, and agree. Thanks for talking through it.
Veritigo_X
Member
I have. Did I misread the part where he was SS or...?
if he's guilty then he's guilty. Sentence and approach is then handled on his age and circumstances (shown remorse, etc) and behaviour in the intervening years.
If he's innocent then ideally this is shown and he walks free.
They question of "why bother" always comes up for older crimes and elderly suspects but clearly in this case the core principles and politics take the fore demanding a trail. Even today in Europe former Nazis and War Criminals the prevailing mood politically is they face judgement for their crimes: it's about the symbolic gesture more than anything and the continued sense it brings closure to certain events and those involved. It's just the way it is.
94 really is catching him late though. I guess the odds of further similar cases must be getting very remote though: soon any remaining survivors, good or evil, will surely have died of old age.
If he's innocent then ideally this is shown and he walks free.
They question of "why bother" always comes up for older crimes and elderly suspects but clearly in this case the core principles and politics take the fore demanding a trail. Even today in Europe former Nazis and War Criminals the prevailing mood politically is they face judgement for their crimes: it's about the symbolic gesture more than anything and the continued sense it brings closure to certain events and those involved. It's just the way it is.
94 really is catching him late though. I guess the odds of further similar cases must be getting very remote though: soon any remaining survivors, good or evil, will surely have died of old age.
neogaffer1
Banned
Keeping in mind that he only managed luggage and sending money found to Berlin, he's gone out of his way to speak out against Holocaust deniers, and that widely recreated and affirmed shock test where people do horrible things when told to by a figure of authority no matter how moral they are, I would say even 3 years is too much. I would say give him a crime that makes him realize that Jewish people are just like him (like working in a Jewish community center) but his actions show that he realizes what he did was wrong.
Confrontation
Member
In that pic he looks like Aemon from GoT.
DoktorEvil
Banned
According to the articles posted and in previous articles, this trial came to be because of a ruling in a 2011 case:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Nazi-medical-experiments-demands-answers.html
Someone in the thread stated that he has held trial before and was not convicted.
I kinda agree with this. If he filed a request to leave and didn't actively participate in the torture or murder then I can't really blame him too much. Give him a symbolic 3 years at this point and stop wasting taxpayer money on this.
PeskyToaster
Member
I believe a professor named Robert Gellately wrote a book on it but I haven't read much on it or delved into criticisms of the book. It was published by Oxford 's Press so at least it's not some nutjob self-publishing (not that that is a guarantee of credibility). Nazi rhetoric in speeches and on the radio is basically "We are going to kill all of the Jews". It's not hidden. I know soldiers knew of it because I've read the orders given to Wehrmacht units regarding treatment of Jews, Bolsheviks, partisans etc and they were advised on the Einsatzgruppen operating in their areas. The terms were used euphemistically to refer to killing civilians as part of the murder campaigns. I've also read a few diaries, memoirs and documentary footage of testimonies where they talk about their reasons for joining the campaigns. The more I read, the more difficult it became to say that the general populace had no idea.
Seems like he made the mistake of living too long.
mullet2000
Member
Fixed feelings here. On one hand, I'm not sure his age or the distance from the event should exempt him from responsibility for his actions.
On the other hand this man has had a literal lifetime of reflection on what he has done, and could be much better used to educate people about the dangers of just going along as a cog in a political machine like he did, assuming he regrets his actions.
The guy is probably a completely different person now than he was in the 1940s. I just have a hard time finding value in punishing individuals on this man's level (ie, not on the level of a political leader, a commander, etc) so long after the actual event over the value that using his experiences to educate others could have for people today.
On the other hand this man has had a literal lifetime of reflection on what he has done, and could be much better used to educate people about the dangers of just going along as a cog in a political machine like he did, assuming he regrets his actions.
The guy is probably a completely different person now than he was in the 1940s. I just have a hard time finding value in punishing individuals on this man's level (ie, not on the level of a political leader, a commander, etc) so long after the actual event over the value that using his experiences to educate others could have for people today.
I'll give a looksie into that book too see what's up, but with my limited knowledge on the subject (im not big into WW2 history, but it's impossible to escape it) my knowledge was is that people generally didnt know that the death camps were a thing. But I could easily be wrong
SilentRacoon
Member
The man clearly regrets what he helped accomplish back when he served for the Nazi regime, and now they want to put him on trial once again in hopes that a new Judge will find him guilty without evidence.
This is an act of vengeance in the purest mean of the word.
Karsticles
Member
Punishing people feels great, but a sentence that requires him to speak to the public about various issues would be more helpful.
Alcoholikaust
Member
Seems like he's about 70 years late for his trip to Lenningrad with the rest of his buddies.
No, they were about to make a trial, but never did. He didn't even knew about that.
You don't really need a sentence for that. He outted himself as being there in order to combat holocaust deniers.
DoktorEvil
Banned
Was there enough evidence to hold a trial before?
There was no evidence, thus the charges were drop really.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Ultimately I suspect given his age and medical condition he would not face any sentence; he'd likely be sentenced to whatever token number of years and then have the sentence suspended. That's fine. Trials are still important because they preserve evidence in the public record and they have an important symbolic role.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
You continue to offer up some very weird "suppositions." He was a Nazi. He was an SS and he did steal money from prisoners. I'm not quite sure why you seem to think these things are in question. They are not.
You also say the acts of an SS trooper who joined their ranks as an actual adult and served as such long before conscription began "are basically negligible ." He worked at the camp for two years. When he did raise objections at the camp, it was due to the inefficiency and cost of how they were committing the genocides, not the murders themselves. Accountants can still do horrific things and this is one of them.
Oskar Groening said:
"Basically negligible."
All we have is his word that he wanted out. What we do know is that he didn't leave the camp until 1944, where nearly every warm body was thrown onto the front line. Was it because he had a change of heart? If so, does that matter? Feeling guilty isn't a get out of trial free card. But there is also a very, very good chance that's not the case and he was ordered to leave to fill in the gaps at the front lines.
If only there was some sort of official proceedings that could take place to determine one's guilt or innocence.
No, which is why they didn't go through with it. As someone stated, this recent trial is because someone else was convicted a few years ago by just working in another Vernichtungslager. Some people are out for the remaining small cogs.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked