Alleged Nazi guard charged over WWII killings

[Lorizael]

Rah, I have no idea what the **** you're attempting to get at by mentioning American bomber crews. Are you implying that the use of bombers by the US constitutes a war crime?

In the general sense, no, but in some cases this would be an entirely reasonable assertion. Take the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, for example.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci, as I understand it he is currently on trial (or whatever you want to call the proceedings against him) for a different set of crimes than the ones he was originally tried for.

And IIRC that's not the case.

[Kuciwalker]

Reading on wiki, I think I may be wrong and earlier stories misreported the new case.

[KrazyHorse]

In the general sense, no, but in some cases this would be an entirely reasonable assertion. Take the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, for example.

a) Is rah making this assertion?

b) There's a vast difference between a bomber crew questioning its orders to carry out a raid of dubious military effectiveness and a guard questioning his orders with full knowledge of the fact that his camp is used to execute thousands of civilians

[KrazyHorse]

Kuci, from my vague recollection he was originally tried for being the most infamous guard at Treblinka. He is currently being charged with being a grunt guard at a different camp.

I might be wrong on this.

[MrFun]

Just a guard?

If he is proven to have been a guard at a death camp then that means that he ACTIVELY AIDED in mass killings.

Any guard there would have known EXACTLY what was happening and still chosen to come to work every day.

**** him.

War criminals differ from regular criminals in that they can usually hope to get away with their actions. If their side wins the war, then it's not going to be considered a crime. Even if their side loses, it's usually pretty easy for them to change identities, or hope that their actions are obscured by the fog of war.

Because of this, it becomes even more important to deter future war criminals with the knowledge that they will be hounded to the end of their days; that there is no statute of limitations. The sight of this pathetic old man rotting away in prison is something important to show.

QFT

[Lorizael]

a) Is rah making this assertion?

I doubt it.

b) There's a vast difference between a bomber crew questioning its orders to carry out a raid of dubious military effectiveness and a guard questioning his orders with full knowledge of the fact that his camp is used to execute thousands of civilians

Certainly, but they could both fall under the umbrella of war crimes. I'm not particularly interested in harping on the past, though. I cannot imagine that locking up some 89 year old Nazi guard until he dies will do anything to prevent future holocausts.

[notyoueither]

Also, the Nazis weren't compelling people to work as guards in the camps. They'd be just as happy sending him off to fight the Soviets.

Being captured while serving with the Red Army might complicate his situation.

It is possible that some Soviets felt they had little choice but to do what was asked of them, or go rejoin their comrades in forced labour. IIRC, a large number of Red Army POWs didn't live to see the chance to be sent to the gulag.

[KrazyHorse]

Certainly, but they could both fall under the umbrella of war crimes.

And I could start ****ting Skittles.

As far as I know, bomber crews from Germany and Japan were not tried as war criminals by the Western powers.

I cannot imagine that locking up some 89 year old Nazi guard until he dies will do anything to prevent future holocausts.

I can't remember what this fallacy is called. Fallacy of the excluded middle? Either way, the point is that it might deter a few individuals in a future situation where they have the choice to participate or not. Even if it doesn't prevent a series of war crimes, it might make them slightly less effective/bloody by reducing the number of participants. I'm not claiming that it will deter a future Hitler. Maybe just a future Demjanjuk.

[Felch]

a) Is rah making this assertion?

b) There's a vast difference between a bomber crew questioning its orders to carry out a raid of dubious military effectiveness and a guard questioning his orders with full knowledge of the fact that his camp is used to execute thousands of civilians

According to Robert McNamara, Curtis LeMay told him that if they'd lost the war they would be charged as war criminals for their bombing tactics. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Firebombing civilian population centers is different from working as a prison camp guard, but it's still a war crime. I think that's pretty clearly Rah's point.

[rah]

I'm just saying that just because you're a guard doesn't make you guilty of mass killings. I'm willing to agree that it's a high probability, but conclusive proof, I doubt it.

And yes, not refusing to bomb non military targets could be considered war crimes. I'm not saying it is, but there is a lot of gray area here, and before I bother to put an 89 year old man in prison for the rest of his life, I'd like a little REAL PROOF. Yes officers that were making decisions and ordering people to do it, yes definite war criminals, but just the grunts, I want more proof. Yes there were lots of grunts that took pleasure in it. But you need some evidence of that. Especially 60 years later. Geeze.

[rah]

[q]
I can't remember what this fallacy is called. Fallacy of the excluded middle? Either way, the point is that it might deter a few individuals in a future situation where they have the choice to participate or not. Even if it doesn't prevent a series of war crimes, it might make them slightly less effective/bloody by reducing the number of participants. I'm not claiming that it will deter a future Hitler. Maybe just a future Demjanjuk.

I'm sure putting him in jail will have 0 influence on all the inhuman activities currently happening in Africa and around the rest of the world.
Real deterence. DO this and 60 years later we'll give you a room and 3 square for the last year of your life.

[KrazyHorse]

Firebombing civilian population centers is different from working as a prison camp guard, but it's still a war crime. I think that's pretty clearly Rah's point.

Felch, while Curtis LeMay is welcome to his opinion, the fact is that German bombings of civilians were not (and feel free to jump in here if I'm wrong) tried as war crimes on the part of the aircrews.

The moral responsibility of an airman to choose not to carry out orders which may be militarily ineffective is far, far lower than the moral responsibility of a guard to choose not to aid and abet in the deliberate massacre of civilians (which even a semi-literate Russian can tell has no military purpose).

Aircrews may not be privy to information regarding the effectiveness of their previous strikes nor even information as to what exactly they are bombing. In the hypothetical situation that an aircrew was told directly that their target was a civilian population that had nothing to do with war production, then yes: I would think that they were war criminals.

[KrazyHorse]

Rah, in one post you claim that the punishment this guy is facing is so severe that merely being an accessory to murder before the fact (this level of participation in a murder is considered equivalent to the act of murder itself throughout the English speaking world, by the way) might not warrant it. In the next, you're claiming that it is not severe enough to deter anybody.

[rah]

hmm, we didn't try german crews because it would mean we'd have to do the same to ours.

We didn't have death camps so those charges were pretty safe.

I'm still waiting for proof that every guard was automatically guilty.