Alleged Nazi guard charged over WWII killings

[rah]

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.

arrgg, Using that definition almost any armed soldier is guilty of war crimes.

[KrazyHorse]

I have no idea why you think that would be so, rah.

[KrazyHorse]

That's not true. I think I do know, but I hesitate to ascribe that level of stupidity to you without further evidence.

[Felch]

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

I think that you agreeing with tinyp3nis is actually the best part of this post.

My belief is that war, in its essence, is a crime. Anything done to abbreviate a war is better than dragging it out. The Holocaust didn't shorten the war (unless you consider the diversion of resources as contributing to the Allied effort). The fire bombings were a crime by most measures, but since they diminished Axis production and damaged morale they can be plausibly justified.

It was a ****ed up war. Nobody was really perfect, but some were definitely a lot worse than others. This guy appears to be one of the worst.

[rah]

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.

HUH
Kill a couple 100 thousand jews and you're SATAN
kill a couple 100 thousand japanese and you're a HERO

I guess the winner gets to determine morality.

[Lorizael]

My belief is that war, in its essence, is a crime. Anything done to abbreviate a war is better than dragging it out.

This is eerily similar to an important part of my system of ethics.

[germanos]

For Rah:

Guards at the concentration and extermination camps (Sobibór and Treblinka belong to the latter category) were exclusively members of the SS.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Totenkopfverb%C3%A4nde .

From the first link:

By 1944, with the concentration camps fully integrated with the Waffen-SS and under the control of the WVHA, a standard practice developed to rotate SS members in and out of the camps, based on manpower needs and also to give assignments to wounded Waffen-SS officers and soldiers who could no longer serve in front-line combat duties. This rotation of personnel is the main argument that nearly the entire SS knew of the concentration camps, and what actions were committed within, making the entire organization liable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

From the second link:

SS KZ personnel:
From its inception, Eicke fostered an attitude of "inflexible harshness" in the SS-TV. This core belief continued to influence guards in all concentration camps even after Eicke had taken over command of the SS Totenkopf Division. Recruits were taught to hate their enemies through tough training regimes and Nazi indoctrination.

SS-TV personnel lost any compassion for camp inmates. Within camps, guards created an atmosphere of controlled, disciplined cruelty that subjugated prisoners. This brutal ethos influenced some of the SS-TV's most infamous members including Rudolf Höß, Franz Ziereis, Karl Otto Koch and Max Kögel.

Demjanjuk will probably not be found guilty. The testimony of his victims is too unreliable after so many years, which has been succesfully argued by the Dutch psychologist Wagenaar, aspecialist on memory. And so far it's only been the memory of the victims that actually tie him to the role of guard at the camps.

[KrazyHorse]

Felch

I think your definition of crime is overly broad.

Most wars are started (on both sides) by either stupid or evil people. Sometimes one side can be justified in fighting, when the war prevents a greater evil. Even the wars which are not justified may not be "crimes", but on the other hand they may be. Some of the things people do in wars are justified as attempts to finish the war off. Some of the things people do are not. Some of the things people do are so obviously not justified that we've created a category called "war crimes" to punish them when the fighting stops. Executing civilians for no real reason (or helping other people to do so) is one of those things.

[KrazyHorse]

HUH
Kill a couple 100 thousand jews and you're SATAN
kill a couple 100 thousand japanese and you're a HERO

I guess the winner gets to determine morality.

Wow. Welcome to ignore.

Asshat.

[rah]

Thank god., Now i won't have to respond to your stupidity.

For the rest of you people reading.
I'm not saying what's justified or not. I personally believe that it was right to drop the bombs and that Officers in the SS should be dealt with harshly. For the common soldier, while they may be guilty, i'd like a little more proof then guilt by association. Is that that hard to understand. While most people were happy particpants, not everyone was.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't read posts by moral midgets. Sorry.

[rah]

You just write them. Sorry.

[Blaupanzer]

In the philosophy largely elevated in the 1960's, the view has become "if you knew and did nothing, you are guilty of condoning that action." If you participated, even if in no other way than to deliver supplies to the garrison, then you are guilty. If death camps are evil, and of course they are, then anyone associated in any way with them is also evil. Since guards are armed and charged as a minimum with keeping the prisoners inside the death camp, this philosophy leads to an instant return ot "GUILTY of a warcrime" if we can prove he was a guard.

If all actions in war are a crime, then the distinction between warcrimes and war are meaningless. Try recruiting soldiers, et al, in a society with that view of war.

The imprisonment or execution of the accused in this case will be an act of revenge -- at this late date, no deterrance value remains.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree with that entire post except for the last bit. How do you know there is no deterrence value in punishing this man? Deterrence is about the future, not the past.

[rah]

I guess my problem is, my definition is not quite all inclusive as Blaupanzers.
War is evil by defintion. The winner determines who was morally correct.
While " i was just following commands" shouldn't be the end all shield, I think about the stories from the red army. Political officers followed behind to shoot regular soldiers who didn't follow orders. There was no tribunal, just a quick death. WHen coercion is involved, knowing and not doing anything isn't totally evil. Now what constitutes sufficient coercion? That's a gray area. Which is why I like a little more proof then guilt by association. If the guy was guilty of atrocities and it can be proved, then go crazy on him. But to imprison an 89 year old guy just because he was in the wrong place seems a bit silly. GIVE ME SOME PROOF.