Maybe The Last Nazi War Criminal to go On Trial
Discussion
Dan_1981 said:
He was only there for two months too - May & June in 1944.
What do people think he should have done?
I don't think there is anything to be gained from prosecuting him.
Not sure where you get that from? He was went to Auschwitz in 1942 and served there until 1944 when he transferred to a combat unit.What do people think he should have done?
I don't think there is anything to be gained from prosecuting him.
Grumfutock said:
Dan_1981 said:
He was only there for two months too - May & June in 1944.
What do people think he should have done?
I don't think there is anything to be gained from prosecuting him.
Not sure where you get that from? He was went to Auschwitz in 1942 and served there until 1944 when he transferred to a combat unit.What do people think he should have done?
I don't think there is anything to be gained from prosecuting him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32392594
"Mr Groening served at Auschwitz between May and June 1944"
Hooli said:
Having been there I know the history is chilling. However like others I'm unsure about punishing low level staff who had no choice but to be there.
Depending on your view, he wasn't low level. If you read about the role of those tasked with literally stripping prisoners of their assets, you may consider otherwise.Digga said:
Hooli said:
Having been there I know the history is chilling. However like others I'm unsure about punishing low level staff who had no choice but to be there.
Depending on your view, he wasn't low level. If you read about the role of those tasked with literally stripping prisoners of their assets, you may consider otherwise.Grumfutock said:
Digga said:
Hooli said:
Having been there I know the history is chilling. However like others I'm unsure about punishing low level staff who had no choice but to be there.
Depending on your view, he wasn't low level. If you read about the role of those tasked with literally stripping prisoners of their assets, you may consider otherwise.Unload the prisoners from the train and tear the last possessions these poor souls had salvaged from the lives they had and hoped to cling to out from their very hands. Most stuff was deemed worthless, but anything of value was 'weighed in' for the war effort. Gold teeth were a choice asset.
I would not like to meet anyone who'd work a minute in that role in any capacity. I'd not even want to associate with someone who'd treat animals that way. You think all the wet work was done by the senior staff?
Digga said:
Hooli said:
Having been there I know the history is chilling. However like others I'm unsure about punishing low level staff who had no choice but to be there.
Depending on your view, he wasn't low level. If you read about the role of those tasked with literally stripping prisoners of their assets, you may consider otherwise.I'm not defending anything that happened there or elsewhere, but there has to be a level where 'I was just following orders' is a defence.
Hooli said:
What he did obviously wasn't nice, but he hardly had any choice did he?
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." - Nuremberg Principle IV.Damned if you did, damned if you didn't. I suspect his defence could swing on what "moral choice" meant at the time.
speedy_thrills said:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." - Nuremberg Principle IV.
Damned if you did, damned if you didn't. I suspect his defence could swing on what "moral choice" meant at the time.
take the moral high road or die is that really a choice?.Damned if you did, damned if you didn't. I suspect his defence could swing on what "moral choice" meant at the time.
My Dad did the full 6 years in WW2 many people seved many people died at what point do we say enough.
I know that some will say never but seeing an old man sitting there like that doesnt sit easy with me.
Digga said:
Do you know what the job involved?
Unload the prisoners from the train and tear the last possessions these poor souls had salvaged from the lives they had and hoped to cling to out from their very hands. Most stuff was deemed worthless, but anything of value was 'weighed in' for the war effort. Gold teeth were a choice asset.
I would not like to meet anyone who'd work a minute in that role in any capacity. I'd not even want to associate with someone who'd treat animals that way. You think all the wet work was done by the senior staff?
Errr no it didnt!Unload the prisoners from the train and tear the last possessions these poor souls had salvaged from the lives they had and hoped to cling to out from their very hands. Most stuff was deemed worthless, but anything of value was 'weighed in' for the war effort. Gold teeth were a choice asset.
I would not like to meet anyone who'd work a minute in that role in any capacity. I'd not even want to associate with someone who'd treat animals that way. You think all the wet work was done by the senior staff?
From everything that I have read on him his job was to look after those possessions and log them down. He didn't "tear the last possessions" from the victims.
As for working there, in today's society I would like to meet anyone who has the moral courage to refuse the job, knowing the consequences of that refusal. Very, very few would pass that exam!
How would you compare this guy with Richard Bock, who worked in the motor pool. Guilty of war crimes?
Grumfutock said:
Errr no it didnt!
From everything that I have read on him his job was to look after those possessions and log them down. He didn't "tear the last possessions" from the victims.
Whether he did that personally, or simply was there overseeing the collection of possessions is moot. We all know that, in most cases, prisoners were going from the trains directly to their deaths in the gas chambers and no one in any position in that camp would be in any doubt about the processing.From everything that I have read on him his job was to look after those possessions and log them down. He didn't "tear the last possessions" from the victims.
I really don't care what you think - I know my own mind and I happen to agree with what is happening in regard to the trial.
What is not readily considered, is that Auschwitz was a huge industrial development, comprising something in excess of 40 sub camps. The extermination camp (Birkenau) was just one of the several facets of that development, not the entire reason for its creation.
The fact is, does a guard who opens a gate for trafic at one of the developments , have a charge to answer for mass murder being perpetrated acres away , which he had no actual part in, and possibly he did not know was occuring?
Again recalling of course , that the actual staff who carried out the mass muder were in specialist units, created for that very task. Many of them convicts, and other nasties. Whilst in some cases of those who perpetrated mass murder, , its all very clear cut, Eichman etc, but for many of those who had roles more on the periphery, I don't beleive it to be anything like so obvious.
The fact is, does a guard who opens a gate for trafic at one of the developments , have a charge to answer for mass murder being perpetrated acres away , which he had no actual part in, and possibly he did not know was occuring?
Again recalling of course , that the actual staff who carried out the mass muder were in specialist units, created for that very task. Many of them convicts, and other nasties. Whilst in some cases of those who perpetrated mass murder, , its all very clear cut, Eichman etc, but for many of those who had roles more on the periphery, I don't beleive it to be anything like so obvious.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff