91 year-old woman maybe to be charged for over 260,000 Auschwitz deaths
89 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FalconHBFS;48738253]A part of me says it's a good thing to do justice for any crime, but at this age is kinda useless. You will throw them in jail, then the feeling of " I did something right kicks in". Justice is justice but I don't see how this solves anything.
I wonder what will happen when everyone involved on the Nazi Regime in any way dies of old age.[/QUOTE]
Even if she's sentenced, she wouldn't be thrown in jail, too old for that, but she'd probably be sent to an elders home and not be allowed outside.
Still, it's stupid to hunt for people like that, radio operator? "Helped the camp function"? The camp wouldn't suddenly stop working just because they didn't have a radio operator.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;48738543]But she was only a radio operator. Most of the people who were allowed to be transferred were in the execution squads, as far as I know.[/QUOTE]
If you couldn't preform your duties you could be transferred. Oskar Groening, who is another guard who is currently being prosecuted, was transferred out after two attempts. They where not persistent attempts though, and he admitted at the time he supported what was happening but didn't agree with how it was done.
A lot of these guards, if you read their comments, have a very much defused sense of guilt about what happened. Seeing themselves as just a part in a machine.
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Killeen;48738590]Even if she's sentenced, she wouldn't be thrown in jail, too old for that, but she'd probably be sent to an elders home and not be allowed outside.
Still, it's stupid to hunt for people like that, radio operator? "Helped the camp function"? The camp wouldn't suddenly stop working just because they didn't have a radio operator.[/QUOTE]
You could say the same thing about those who operated the gas chambers.
The point is, the nazis weren't doing anything criminal. They didn't break any laws at the time, so any justice administered now is retroactive and [I]is not justice[/I]. According to the very basic principles of legal philosophy, the law [I]does not apply to the past[/I]. There are lots of cases where the law has changed and prisoners who were convicted have served rest of their sentences, because of that very principle.
[QUOTE=kill3r;48737682]
I personally disagree with doing this - she's 91 years old now just leave her be[/QUOTE]
Her age has nothing to do with this. Her job shouldn't be something that gets her destroyed.
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;48738189]You're implying anti-semitism is something they don't want.
If people stopped hating the Jews, how would they be able to pull the "remember the 60 million" card?[/QUOTE]
The way people (such as zionists) exaggerate the holocaust and drag through it through the mud for sympathy points is disgusting
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48738710]The point is, the nazis weren't doing anything criminal. They didn't break any laws at the time, so any justice administered now is retroactive and [I]is not justice[/I]. According to the very basic principles of legal philosophy, the law [I]does not apply to the past[/I]. There are lots of cases where the law has changed and prisoners who were convicted have served rest of their sentences, because of that very principle.[/QUOTE]
Are you really suggesting that because the mass killing of men, women and children was permitted by the Nazi state that no one has any legal responsibility in it?
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48738723]
The way people (such as zionists) exaggerate the holocaust and drag through it through the mud for sympathy points is disgusting[/QUOTE]
How do you exaggerate the killing of over 10 million people?
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
Also are you talking about her job working at a death camp? That job?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48738765]Are you really suggesting that because the mass killing of men, women and children was permitted by the Nazi state that no one has any legal responsibility in it?[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I'm saying. It was entirely legal and the responsibility should lie with the legislators, not the people who worked under that system. On what authority can this woman be convicted? To whom is that authority accountable, and how can we presume to apply moral - not even legal - principles to the past?
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
Her job was a radio operator. She wasn't digging the graves and shooting people herself, she was a cog in a massive bureaucracy staffed by a civil service that was kept deliberately disjointed from its work
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48738798]That's exactly what I'm saying. It was entirely legal and the responsibility should lie with the legislators, not the people who worked under that system. On what authority can this woman be convicted? To whom is that authority accountable, and how can we presume to apply moral - not even legal - principles to the past?
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
Her job was a radio operator. She wasn't digging the graves and shooting people herself, she was a cog in a massive bureaucracy staffed by a civil service that was kept deliberately disjointed from its work[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48738798]That's exactly what I'm saying. It was entirely legal and the responsibility should lie with the legislators, not the people who worked under that system. On what authority can this woman be convicted? To whom is that authority accountable, and how can we presume to apply moral - not even legal - principles to the past?
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
Her job was a radio operator. She wasn't digging the graves and shooting people herself, she was a cog in a massive bureaucracy staffed by a civil service that was kept deliberately disjointed from its work[/QUOTE]
Ex post facto, murdering millions of people isn't some legal gray area.
She was a willing cog in a massive murder operation. She wasn't disjointed from what was going on, she was stationed in the camp and was an important part of communication.
What if instead of like, sending her to jail, they instead make her work at a holocaust remembrance museum or Memorial or some other sort of community service on the weekends or something???? I think it's stupid to try to go after her in the first place, but I understand a desire for justice. The people responsible have all met their end, now they're just going after people who had no choice. Disobeying orders = penal battalion/execution
The Bible even says that you should just obey orders given to you by your masters, even if it is immoral etc. And that you will not be judged, but your masters will be.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48738798]That's exactly what I'm saying. It was entirely legal and the responsibility should lie with the legislators, not the people who worked under that system. On what authority can this woman be convicted? To whom is that authority accountable, and how can we presume to apply moral - not even legal - principles to the past?
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
Her job was a radio operator. She wasn't digging the graves and shooting people herself, she was a cog in a massive bureaucracy staffed by a civil service that was kept deliberately disjointed from its work[/QUOTE]
So should the actual camp operators and planners not have been prosecuted as well?
Dr. Mengele wasn't a "legislator." He didn't make any of the rules, he just "worked under that system."
[QUOTE=CrucialSeBBi;48737983]I'm getting pretty sick of the fact that many facepunchers think being old excuses someone from a crime. It's kinda like excusing Saville from raping those women because "oh it happened 30-40 years ago just leave him alone". Sure going after book keepers and radio operators is kinda silly but my point still stands[/QUOTE]
Being a radio operator for what was the current national government is not a fucking crime and it doesn't make you responsible for the death of anybody
even if it is a crime maybe it's not super cold objective and logical but I'm not down with throwing a 91 year old woman in prison or some shit
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48738765]Are you really suggesting that because the mass killing of men, women and children was permitted by the Nazi state that no one has any legal responsibility in it?
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
How do you exaggerate the killing of over 10 million people?
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
Also are you talking about her job working at a death camp? That job?[/QUOTE]
There were 2.8 million Jews in nazi occupied Europe, yet somehow 6 million died and another 3.4 million lived to collect pensions from the German government after the war.
Never forget the 600 gorrillion
[QUOTE=AsherRoth;48738918]There were 2.8 million Jews in nazi occupied Europe, yet somehow 6 million died and another 3.4 million lived to collect pensions from the German government after the war.
Never forget the 600 gorrillion[/QUOTE]
Just what this thread was missing.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;48737733]I don't like that idea. You don't get away with murder simply because it your involvement was undetected for 50 years - and you're now in old age... you should still be prosecuted.
But being a radio operator for the SS counts as involvement in war crimes? That's a bit far fetched.[/QUOTE]
Came here to write this exact post. It doesn't matter if she's 30 or 90, but the fact that she was just a radio operator is what matters and makes the whole thing seem really pointless.
[QUOTE=Explosions;48738912]So should the actual camp operators and planners not have been prosecuted as well?
Dr. Mengele wasn't a "legislator." He didn't make any of the rules, he just "worked under that system."[/QUOTE]
there's a few layers of difference between a radio operator and fucking Mengele
does it make me an accomplice to millions of deaths if I shined Hitler's shoes
[QUOTE=AsherRoth;48738918]There were 2.8 million Jews in nazi occupied Europe, yet somehow 6 million died and another 3.4 million lived to collect pensions from the German government after the war.
Never forget the 600 gorrillion[/QUOTE]
There was close to 10 million living in Europe at the start of WW2. Although something tells me arguing with you is not going to be productive.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48738862]Ex post facto, murdering millions of people isn't some legal gray area.
She was a willing cog in a massive murder operation. She wasn't disjointed from what was going on, she was stationed in the camp and was an important part of communication.[/QUOTE]
But it wasn't murder, that's what I'm getting at. I mean, it was, but not legally speaking. That's like prosecuting the countless doctors and staff involved in European and American eugenics programs around the same time - they did not unlawfully take the lives of others with malice aforethought. Neither did the Nazis; it was legal.
Are we going to prosecute the Saudi Arabians who stoned people to death or cut off their hands? Should we prosecute the prison staff who execute prisoners today? No, because the state has deemed it legal and anyway, we have no right to overrule the law and apply it retroactively.
To address your other point, she definitely was disjointed. The nazi civil service was quite deliberately kept separate from the workings of the concentration and work camps; Hitler himself didn't know exactly what was going on. The only people with a full picture were the people on the ground and the SS - all of whom definitely should be prosecuted, because they did commit war crimes for which they can be held accountable - a radio operator was as much involved as the cooking staff or the cleaners, it was a very intricate process that was applied to everyone in the Reich - they were taught to see their job as mindless, cold paperwork. Integral as these things might have been to the overall machine, each branch had no real concept of what it was doing
[QUOTE=Explosions;48738930]Just what this thread was missing.[/QUOTE]
There's pretty much conclusive evidence that it would have been actually impossible to exterminate 6 million Jews by the traditional narrative.
Though instead of looking into this for yourself you are welcome to cover your ears and hum loudly
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Explosions;48738912]So should the actual camp operators and planners not have been prosecuted as well?
Dr. Mengele wasn't a "legislator." He didn't make any of the rules, he just "worked under that system."[/QUOTE]
Where their actions constituted crimes, yes. Lots of war crimes were committed, contrary to the Geneva Convention, but the charges of 'crimes against humanity' were entirely created by the Allied powers (along with other ridiculous ones like 'membership of a criminal organisation' in reference to an organisation which wasn't criminal at the time the accused were members)
When it comes to Mengele and his like, no one cares what you do. But don't create new laws and dress the process up as justice, because it isn't.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;48737733]I don't like that idea. You don't get away with murder simply because it your involvement was undetected for 50 years - and you're now in old age... you should still be prosecuted.
But being a radio operator for the SS counts as involvement in war crimes? That's a bit far fetched.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh this was YEARS ago and they were just following orders, there's literally no reason and no good at all that would come from prosecuting them. It would just be a waste of resources and time.
I guess if I lived in the US in 1942 and worked typewriters or mail some shit for the government I am to blame for the Japanese internment camps so long as I happened to work at one
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;48737723]A book keeper, then a radio operator.. I feel like theyre grasping at straws at the moment[/QUOTE]
I agree it's not like she was the bitch of Buchenwald going out and killing people or gassing them. She was just a radio operator.
This "hunt" is as repulsive as the last one.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48738952]But it wasn't murder, that's what I'm getting at. I mean, it was, but not legally speaking. That's like prosecuting the countless doctors and staff involved in European and American eugenics programs around the same time - they did not unlawfully take the lives of others with malice aforethought. Neither did the Nazis; it was legal.
Are we going to prosecute the Saudi Arabians who stoned people to death or cut off their hands? Should we prosecute the prison staff who execute prisoners today? No, because the state has deemed it legal and anyway, we have no right to overrule the law and apply it retroactively.
To address your other point, she definitely was disjointed. The nazi civil service was quite deliberately kept separate from the workings of the concentration and work camps; Hitler himself didn't know exactly what was going on. The only people with a full picture were the people on the ground and the SS - all of whom definitely should be prosecuted, because they did commit war crimes for which they can be held accountable - a radio operator was as much involved as the cooking staff or the cleaners, it was a very intricate process that was applied to everyone in the Reich - they were taught to see their job as mindless, cold paperwork. Integral as these things might have been to the overall machine, each branch had no real concept of what it was doing[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean Hitler didn't know what was going on, he knew Jews where being exterminated on a massive scale. If you worked at all at Auschwitz, which she did, you knew at some capacity what was going on, especially if you are the main source of communication for the camp.
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48739005]I guess if I lived in the US in 1942 and worked typewriters or mail some shit for the government I am to blame for the Japanese internment camps so long as I happened to work at one[/QUOTE]
Ignoring how the example doesn't make sense in comparison, there is a big difference between US Internment camps and Nazi death camps.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48739235]Ignoring how the example doesn't make sense in comparison, there is a big difference between US Internment camps and Nazi death camps.[/QUOTE]
maybe, but hey, I'd say it's still a better comparison than Explosions comparing a 91 year old woman former radio operator to fucking Mengele
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48739318]maybe, but hey, I'd say it's still a better comparison than Explosions comparing a 91 year old woman former radio operator to fucking Mengele[/QUOTE]
No the comparison worked in the context in which he made it. Dr. Ethan Asia said its was only those who made the laws which where responsible. Therefore the radio operator and Mengele would be on the same page
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48739235]I'm not sure what you mean Hitler didn't know what was going on, he knew Jews where being exterminated on a massive scale. If you worked at all at Auschwitz, which she did, you knew at some capacity what was going on, especially if you are the main source of communication for the camp.[/QUOTE]
Hitler was essentially the 'ideas guy'; letters and documents from his staff indicate that he had no active role in the holocaust or indeed in any policies (he famously hated paperwork and signed whatever documents came across his desk without reading them); he infuriated his subordinates who actually needed his say so, whereas the enterprising empire-builders (men such as von Ribbentrop, Himmler, Goebbels, Hess, Bormann, and Heydrich) used this 'blank cheque' approach to enact various laws that nominally had the approval of the Fuhrer without actually being ordained by him as was central to the Hitler myth. Hitler said 'do something about the Jews', Himmler established the concentration camps and set up the bureaucracy needed to make it work - in essence, the Final Solution was entirely Himmler's doing.
What that meant was Himmler, an astonishingly effective organiser, was as Reichsfuhrer-SS directly in charge; it was key to his mini-empire that the right hand didn't know what the left was doing (a key feature in every department of the German government, myriad ministries and bureaus all in direct competition with each other and with inefficient overlapping remits. This was the case in Auschwitz itself where Höss was able to run it essentially as his own kingdom until he was replaced).
This kind of turned into a history lesson but my point is, the staff at the camps were not privy to the secrets of Auscwitz. Barely any officials were, and Höss himself didn't know the camp was Even being used for Jews, let alone their extermination, as late as 1941 because, again, the officers were all competing and conniving behind each other's backs.
I'm chipping away at a massive 1,000 page novel titled Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and it is very easy to understand that the entire nation, except upper middle to upper classes shared a very like mentality.
Unfortunately, there's more low and lower middle citizens in a normal country, especially one that just dealt with a bout of massive hyperinflation, which, unlike popular belief, was under[I] relative [/I]control by 1932. The country was politically fractured, and only by backstabbing and behind closed door collaborations to undermine the republic did Hitler get in.
Beyond this, though, IBM played a major role in the calculations behind most of the camps, they knew about it and did nothing. They didn't even stop selling the computers. The enforcement of these charges, however you view it, has a tinge on hypocrisy. Should IBM, its CEO's and managers, not be considered an accomplice and thus be put to court for being so?
Of course not, they're too big a company, and this woman would put up less of a fight than a multi-million, probably billion dollar tech giant.
She is 91 and will probably die before any of this even nears a close.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48739413]Hitler was essentially the 'ideas guy'; letters and documents from his staff indicate that he had no active role in the holocaust or indeed in any policies (he famously hated paperwork and signed whatever documents came across his desk without reading them); he infuriated his subordinates who actually needed his say so, whereas the enterprising empire-builders (men such as von Ribbentrop, Himmler, Goebbels, Hess, Bormann, and Heydrich) used this 'blank cheque' approach to enact various laws that nominally had the approval of the Fuhrer without actually being ordained by him as was central to the Hitler myth. Hitler said 'do something about the Jews', Himmler established the concentration camps and set up the bureaucracy needed to make it work - in essence, the Final Solution was entirely Himmler's doing.
What that meant was Himmler, an astonishingly effective organiser, was as Reichsfuhrer-SS directly in charge; it was key to his mini-empire that the right hand didn't know what the left was doing (a key feature in every department of the German government, myriad ministries and bureaus all in direct competition with each other and with inefficient overlapping remits. This was the case in Auschwitz itself where Höss was able to run it essentially as his own kingdom until he was replaced).
This kind of turned into a history lesson but my point is, the staff at the camps were not privy to the secrets of Auscwitz. Barely any officials were, and Höss himself didn't know the camp was Even being used for Jews, let alone their extermination, as late as 1941 because, again, the officers were all competing and conniving behind each other's backs.[/QUOTE]
Can I get a source on this?
Nobody goes to jail in these casew, its purely for justice. Relax
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48739413]Hitler was essentially the 'ideas guy'; letters and documents from his staff indicate that he had no active role in the holocaust or indeed in any policies (he famously hated paperwork and signed whatever documents came across his desk without reading them); he infuriated his subordinates who actually needed his say so, whereas the enterprising empire-builders (men such as von Ribbentrop, Himmler, Goebbels, Hess, Bormann, and Heydrich) used this 'blank cheque' approach to enact various laws that nominally had the approval of the Fuhrer without actually being ordained by him as was central to the Hitler myth. Hitler said 'do something about the Jews', Himmler established the concentration camps and set up the bureaucracy needed to make it work - in essence, the Final Solution was entirely Himmler's doing.
What that meant was Himmler, an astonishingly effective organiser, was as Reichsfuhrer-SS directly in charge; it was key to his mini-empire that the right hand didn't know what the left was doing (a key feature in every department of the German government, myriad ministries and bureaus all in direct competition with each other and with inefficient overlapping remits. This was the case in Auschwitz itself where Höss was able to run it essentially as his own kingdom until he was replaced).
This kind of turned into a history lesson but my point is, the staff at the camps were not privy to the secrets of Auscwitz. Barely any officials were, and Höss himself didn't know the camp was Even being used for Jews, let alone their extermination, as late as 1941 because, again, the officers were all competing and conniving behind each other's backs.[/QUOTE]
Your really underselling Hitler complicity in the Holocaust. Such a mass undertaking would have undoubtedly required Hitlers explicit.
He didn't saw "Do something about those Jews Himmler." And just ignoring it for the rest of the war
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.