Former Auschwitz guard convicted, thoughts?
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36560416
So a many in his late 90's has been convicted for 4 years for being complicit in the death of 170,000 people.
While obviously the actions of the Nazi's are deplorable, I do question what the point is in jailing a man who has clearly lived his life and has nothing really left to lose.
Am I completely mis-understanding the point of the sentencing?
So a many in his late 90's has been convicted for 4 years for being complicit in the death of 170,000 people.
While obviously the actions of the Nazi's are deplorable, I do question what the point is in jailing a man who has clearly lived his life and has nothing really left to lose.
Am I completely mis-understanding the point of the sentencing?
He could live for another 5 years, hence he has 4 years of freedom to lose. Which is the point I guess.
If we start letting scumbags off because they're old, at what age do you let them off. 90? 80? 75?
Supposing a 90 yr old ran over and killed one of your family, whilst drunk. Would you be ok to be told "well he 90, so what's the point in punishing him?"
Lock the Nazi f
kers up I say.
If we start letting scumbags off because they're old, at what age do you let them off. 90? 80? 75?
Supposing a 90 yr old ran over and killed one of your family, whilst drunk. Would you be ok to be told "well he 90, so what's the point in punishing him?"
Lock the Nazi f
kers up I say. xjay1337 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36560416
So a many in his late 90's has been convicted for 4 years for being complicit in the death of 170,000 people.
While obviously the actions of the Nazi's are deplorable, I do question what the point is in jailing a man who has clearly lived his life and has nothing really left to lose.
Am I completely mis-understanding the point of the sentencing?
OK 4 years is not a lot and he's not going to do it again but what else would you suggest?So a many in his late 90's has been convicted for 4 years for being complicit in the death of 170,000 people.
While obviously the actions of the Nazi's are deplorable, I do question what the point is in jailing a man who has clearly lived his life and has nothing really left to lose.
Am I completely mis-understanding the point of the sentencing?
"It's ok because you're old now" doesn't quite seem adequate but nothing is.
Tricky business:
as per the link:
German prosecutors were required, until recently, to provide evidence that defendants were directly involved in the killings.
As time has moved on the terms of prosecution have been lowered. Had the same principles been in place at Nuremburg and after, there would have been tens of thousands more prosecutions.
One of the odd things about Germany is that largely because of the cold war, there was something of a post war omerta about low level complicity in the holocaust. People who shared responsibility were ignored.
That was partly in order to heal the wounds of Nazi Germany. Partly because of the question of how a cog in the wheel could have reasonably prevented the industrial scale of what was going on. Partly because once you open up the question of complicity, there is a serious problem with the nature of the holocaust: for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33533264 Oskar Groenig was a camp accountant. He assembled detail summaries of the confiscated belongings. Not actually involved in murder but 'there'. How about the train controllers that shipped the jews to Birkenau? How about the owners of properties confiscated from the victims? The reality is that a significant percentage of people in Germany at the time of the Reich were probably aware of what was going on, but didn't 'do' anything about it.
This is not in anyway to exonerate Hanning. After all the man was a member of the SS and stood guard at Auschwitz. It's just to point out that this really isn't as simple as all that.
as per the link:
German prosecutors were required, until recently, to provide evidence that defendants were directly involved in the killings.
As time has moved on the terms of prosecution have been lowered. Had the same principles been in place at Nuremburg and after, there would have been tens of thousands more prosecutions.
One of the odd things about Germany is that largely because of the cold war, there was something of a post war omerta about low level complicity in the holocaust. People who shared responsibility were ignored.
That was partly in order to heal the wounds of Nazi Germany. Partly because of the question of how a cog in the wheel could have reasonably prevented the industrial scale of what was going on. Partly because once you open up the question of complicity, there is a serious problem with the nature of the holocaust: for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33533264 Oskar Groenig was a camp accountant. He assembled detail summaries of the confiscated belongings. Not actually involved in murder but 'there'. How about the train controllers that shipped the jews to Birkenau? How about the owners of properties confiscated from the victims? The reality is that a significant percentage of people in Germany at the time of the Reich were probably aware of what was going on, but didn't 'do' anything about it.
This is not in anyway to exonerate Hanning. After all the man was a member of the SS and stood guard at Auschwitz. It's just to point out that this really isn't as simple as all that.
R8Steve said:
Where i have absolutely no sympathy for him at all what could he have done to stop it and what would have happened to him if he tried?
This and the post above by Ridgemont is what I mean.It's not like he was responsible. There is every possibility he just happened to work for the SS and I don't believe every member of the SS knew what atrocities were going to be carried out in the future when they perhaps originally signed up.
I am fine with honouring the memories, lest we forget, etc. Obviously the actions carried out during these awful times was atrocious and I honestly hope nothing ever happens again.
But I don't see how sentencing an old man to die in jail either changes anything, shows those Jerry's "what for, rickety pip pop pop" - and I can't see how it would help any of the surviving victims/families in terms of closure.
I'm trying to think of a metaphor but I'm coming up short. I hope some of you can understand what I mean haha.
Back when the original trials were held the key players and worst offenders were punished. The thousands of small time and administration staff were dealt with in a fairly nominal way.
There was never any particular secret about who was working where and for the most part all those recently convicted weren't exactly hidden. At least one had been involved in educational talks about the horrors of what happened.
The base reasoning here is to find any remaining opportunity to convict any available person however marginal their involvement while there is still time. I can think of a few possible motives for this but some of the recent cases have been a bit on the weak side if they were about punishing someone for a crime rather than just trying to make a point.
Hunting down some of these people to the ends of the earth is worthwhile but convicting a radio operator of 170000 counts of murder after 70 years of opportunity is just for show.
There was never any particular secret about who was working where and for the most part all those recently convicted weren't exactly hidden. At least one had been involved in educational talks about the horrors of what happened.
The base reasoning here is to find any remaining opportunity to convict any available person however marginal their involvement while there is still time. I can think of a few possible motives for this but some of the recent cases have been a bit on the weak side if they were about punishing someone for a crime rather than just trying to make a point.
Hunting down some of these people to the ends of the earth is worthwhile but convicting a radio operator of 170000 counts of murder after 70 years of opportunity is just for show.
xjay1337 said:
R8Steve said:
Where i have absolutely no sympathy for him at all what could he have done to stop it and what would have happened to him if he tried?
This and the post above by Ridgemont is what I mean.It's not like he was responsible. There is every possibility he just happened to work for the SS and I don't believe every member of the SS knew what atrocities were going to be carried out in the future when they perhaps originally signed up.
I am fine with honouring the memories, lest we forget, etc. Obviously the actions carried out during these awful times was atrocious and I honestly hope nothing ever happens again.
But I don't see how sentencing an old man to die in jail either changes anything, shows those Jerry's "what for, rickety pip pop pop" - and I can't see how it would help any of the surviving victims/families in terms of closure.
I'm trying to think of a metaphor but I'm coming up short. I hope some of you can understand what I mean haha.
xjay1337 said:
Digga said:
guess it's analogous to an "accessory to murder" charge.
It could be, but he didn't kill anyone.It's like being a receptionist at a company for which the MD just happens to be a drug dealer.
(that only took me 5 minutes!!!!)
Do they not look at whether it is in the public interest to prosecute / jail a person ?
I would be surprised if he actually went to Jail, the odds are at his age he would require some form of care.
If you look at the Germany thread a couple of Syrian Migrants raped two girls, and they were not sent to jail as the were too immature to understand the concept of rape. They got suspended sentences - now it is definitely in the public interest to jail these potentially dangerous individuals.
Surely when he was "active" 70 odd years ago he could also use the defence of being immature to fully appreciate what he / his employers were doing ? He would have been young at the time.
There was a DM article comparing a prison sentence an Egg Farmer got for falsely selling battery eggs as free range, and a serial sex offender. His latest victim wept in court as she said he had ruined her life. I doubt there were many people crying in court over the eggs they bought !
Yes the "EGG FRAUD MONSTER" got the longer sentence.
This...
I can understand going for the big hitters who made policy or guards who were know for being cruel etc but this guy was, even though I hate using the phrase, just doing his job.
If he had refused, he'd have got a bullet because it would have effectively been desertion.
The guards in these places in some ways were as doomed as the Jews forced to work the gas chambers.
They had to do their terrible jobs or suffer the consequences of refusing.
R8Steve said:
Where i have absolutely no sympathy for him at all what could he have done to stop it and what would have happened to him if he tried?
...and this...PurpleMoonlight said:
He has been accused of doing nothing to stop what happened but was he really in a position to do so?
What would have happened to him if he refused to act on the orders given to him? If he would have been shot then I have great sympathy for him being prosecuted now.
sum it up for me.What would have happened to him if he refused to act on the orders given to him? If he would have been shot then I have great sympathy for him being prosecuted now.
I can understand going for the big hitters who made policy or guards who were know for being cruel etc but this guy was, even though I hate using the phrase, just doing his job.
If he had refused, he'd have got a bullet because it would have effectively been desertion.
The guards in these places in some ways were as doomed as the Jews forced to work the gas chambers.
They had to do their terrible jobs or suffer the consequences of refusing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff