Alleged Nazi guard charged over WWII killings

[rah]

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.

No I said that there is no proof that he's guilty. Just being a guard doesn't make you automatically guilty.

[Patroklos]

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

German submarine commanders, however, were charged with war crimes for engaging in unrestricted sumbarine warfare in the Atlantic while American/British/Dutch submarine crews were not for procecuting far more brutal and deadly unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific.

[KrazyHorse]

Proof of what, Rah?

I've already explained to you twice that somebody who knowingly and actively aids and abets a murder by restraining the victim is just as culpable as the person who actually kills the victim.

What exactly is unclear about that?

[rah]

There were many POW camps where prisoners were abused to the point of their death. Were all the guards that watched the fences automatically guilty of war crimes. I'll concede that a guard at a death camp was likely to be involved. But likely doesn't mean automatically guilty, and no blanket statement changes that fact. I'd just like to see some specific proof, and it seems they've been unable to come up with any in the past and not likely going forward. SO why should he be imprissoned for the rest of his life.

[KrazyHorse]

German submarine commanders, however, were charged with war crimes for engaging in unrestricted sumbarine warfare in the Atlantic while American/British/Dutch submarine crews were not for procecuting far more brutal and deadly unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific.

AFAIK wasn't it only Donitz who was tried based on this? Also, didn't the court suspend his sentence because the unrestricted sub warfare rules were regarded as ridiculous by this point in time?

[Felch]

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.

I think the Allies knew that charging people with war crimes for strategic bombings would look absolutely retarded. Nuremberg was more theatric than a search for justice. It was about scoring post-war propaganda points and assuring the folks back home that their sacrifices meant something. Axis strategic bombing never developed very much. Most of their air power was geared towards tactical ground support and air superiority. Even during the Blitz, London never faced hundreds of four engine bombers the way that the Germans and Japanese did near the end of the war.

I agree that airmen aren't in as good of a position to judge their culpability as a death camp guard.

[KrazyHorse]

Rah's jumped the shark in this one.



That's three times that I've explained to you that in many jurisdictions (and possibly the one he will be tried in) THERE IS NO LEGAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AIDING AND ABETTING A MURDER AND ACTUALLY COMMITTING IT.

The police don't need to prove which person pulled the trigger. All participants are considered equally guilty.

[rah]

What the men that dropped the A-Bomb did realize what they were doing? BULL****.

[Patroklos]

Yes, just Donitz, and he was found guilty though that finding was not assessed because of orders from both the British and American navies that in effect mirrored his. He served ten years.

[KrazyHorse]

What the men that dropped the A-Bomb did realize what they were doing? BULL****.

What happened 6 days after the first bomb and 3 days after the second?

The men who dropped those two bombs are perhaps the greatest heroes of that war.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, just Donitz, and he was found guilty though that finding was not assessed because of orders from both the British and American navies that in effect mirrored his. He served ten years.

So your point is that one person (the one who issued the orders from the top) was found guilty but wasn't even punished (he was punished for other stuff IIRC).

Come on, dude. That's weak.

[Patroklos]

I am just presenting the facts, do what you will with them

The trial of Donitz is actually pretty interesting. It really is one of the weak spots of the tribunal.

[Felch]

The men who dropped those two bombs are perhaps the greatest heroes of that war.

I wrote an essay for a scholarship where I made this assertion. The Japanese were willing to die by the tens of thousands in fire bombings, but the A-bomb was such a radical change that they had to wake up to reality. Not only did they capitulate, but the occupation was relatively peaceful. Although it's impossible to prove, I believe that the atomic bombings saved lives on both sides.

[tinyp3nis]

What you guys don't understand is Jack Bauer's character is based on KrazyHorse. They had to make Bauer more of a ***** than he would have been to make it realistic.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree. Which is why their inclusion in this discussion is a red herring. If, even with the benefit of 64 years of hindsight, it's impossible to claim convincingly that what they did was wrong, then I'm pretty sure that it would be impossible to prove that they should have, at the time, known that what they were about to do was wrong and thus disobeyed orders.

EDIT: xpost, pretty obviously