Nazi goes on trial for being an accessory to the murder of at least 300,000 Jews.
147 replies, posted
Lest We Forget~
[QUOTE=GunFox;47569307]A crime? In what jurisdiction? Was perfectly legal in Germany.[/QUOTE]
So it's kinda like jaywalking before crosswalks then getting fined for jaywalking after crosswalks were made? He's old it makes sense!
[QUOTE=WTFTY;47570720]So it's kinda like jaywalking before crosswalks then getting fined for jaywalking after crosswalks were made? He's old it makes sense![/QUOTE]
Murdering humans and jaywalking are kinda different though.
[QUOTE=Maegord;47570199]And his account of being a bookkeeper is the only thing we know. If we wanted to argue otherwise, that would require evidence implicating him differently, evidence that doesn't exist. As some of the previous posts showed, they had attempted to prosecute him twice in the past, but it fell short until more recent convictions set a precedent that one can be convicted without any evidence, as long as they were known to have been nazis at one point. So until they manage to conjure up evidence out of nowhere, I'm going to assume that bookkeeper part.
[/QUOTE]
Really fair argument.
I think we can all agree this is just waste of money at this point.
So just to make this clear, this guy has been on trial 3 times now yes? So we're looking at a few things here.
1. there is no direct evidence short of hearsay, which isn't held as concrete evidence in any court case.
2. you can't try someone multiple times for the same crime, double jeopardy.
3. the trial holds no grounds in serving justice as there is no justice to be had against someone who was at the time powerless to act otherwise without provoking their death/harm or their family's death/harm. At the time it would be also said that he was brainwashed from quite a young age to believe in what he was doing, that would make him a victim of intense psychological conditioning and ergo, not fully responsible for his actions.
4. the trial isn't impartial as there are can be no impartial jurors or judges due to the radical and deeply seated emotional response that is still had against or for the Nazi party as the direct result of many decades of propaganda that came during and after WWII.
5. innocent until proven guilty, the number of people who do not understand this applies to literally EVERYONE is disgusting.
This trial is a fucking sham and anyone who supports it is pretty much directly advocating for the removal of five major aspects of a fair legal system and is actively for setting the precedent that revenge is an acceptable factor when punishing people for a crime, meaning the death penalty is therefore a morally just option.
[editline]21st April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=WTFTY;47570720]So it's kinda like jaywalking before crosswalks then getting fined for jaywalking after crosswalks were made? He's old it makes sense![/QUOTE]
This analogy would apply if he actively continued murdering people AFTER the war, which as far as the evidence (none) shows, he didn't.
[QUOTE=draugur;47570835]3. the trial holds no grounds in serving justice as there is no justice to be had against someone who was at the time powerless to act otherwise without provoking their death/harm or their family's death/harm. At the time it would be also said that he was brainwashed from quite a young age to believe in what he was doing, that would make him a victim of intense psychological conditioning and ergo, not fully responsible for his actions.[/QUOTE]
Can we get over this myth already? There was no policy of "kill or be killed" for the Germans. You could request other duties or to be transferred elsewhere. Plenty of times officers refused to carry out massacres or commit other crimes and nothing happened to them. This fact was actually used during the Nuremberg trials to dispel the "just following orders" defense. As for the "brainwashed" comment, the same thing applies. There were many millions of people under the Nazi regime who refused to be complicit in these crimes and there were many other who actively worked against the regime despite being inundated with the so called "brainwashing" propaganda.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47570738]Murdering humans and jaywalking are kinda different though.[/QUOTE]
but he didn't murder any humans?
[QUOTE=Explosions;47570938]Can we get over this myth already? There was no policy of "kill or be killed" for the Germans. You could request other duties or to be transferred elsewhere. Plenty of times officers refused to carry out massacres or commit other crimes and nothing happened to them. This fact was actually used during the Nuremberg trials to dispel the "just following orders" defense. As for the "brainwashed" comment, the same thing applies. There were many millions of people under the Nazi regime who refused to be complicit in these crimes and there were many other who actively worked against the regime despite being inundated with the so called "brainwashing" propaganda.[/QUOTE]
Okay? There's still four other points there that are stronger than #3 so.
[QUOTE=draugur;47570987]Okay? There's still four other points there that are stronger than #3 so.[/QUOTE]
I was only responding to that point though. It's always brought up whenever anyone talks about WWII and it's totally false.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47569239]Let me guess. "He's old so it doesn't matter". He still comitted the crime and age shouldn't be a barrier between the morals and the law.
[editline]21st April 2015[/editline]
Literally ninja'd but my point exactly[/QUOTE]
yes! Arrest him! He'll pay for the rest of his life, which if its an extra year would be calling it luck!
[QUOTE=kweh;47571005]yes! Arrest him! He'll pay for the rest of his life, which if its an extra year would be calling it luck![/QUOTE]
You would probably say the same thing if he was 70 yet here he is at 93.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47570738]Murdering humans and jaywalking are kinda different though.[/QUOTE]
Good thing he didn't murder anybody.
Hey, IBM helped [i]immensely[/i] with the book keeping and logistics of the genocide. When is the IBM corporation gonna go on trial?
[QUOTE=draugur;47570835]So just to make this clear, this guy has been on trial 3 times now yes? So we're looking at a few things here.
1. there is no direct evidence short of hearsay, which isn't held as concrete evidence in any court case.
2. you can't try someone multiple times for the same crime, double jeopardy.
3. the trial holds no grounds in serving justice as there is no justice to be had against someone who was at the time powerless to act otherwise without provoking their death/harm or their family's death/harm. At the time it would be also said that he was brainwashed from quite a young age to believe in what he was doing, that would make him a victim of intense psychological conditioning and ergo, not fully responsible for his actions.
4. the trial isn't impartial as there are can be no impartial jurors or judges due to the radical and deeply seated emotional response that is still had against or for the Nazi party as the direct result of many decades of propaganda that came during and after WWII.
5. innocent until proven guilty, the number of people who do not understand this applies to literally EVERYONE is disgusting.
This trial is a fucking sham and anyone who supports it is pretty much directly advocating for the removal of five major aspects of a fair legal system and is actively for setting the precedent that revenge is an acceptable factor when punishing people for a crime, meaning the death penalty is therefore a morally just option.
[editline]21st April 2015[/editline]
This analogy would apply if he actively continued murdering people AFTER the war, which as far as the evidence (none) shows, he didn't.[/QUOTE]
how about we actually make this clear, and not do it half-assed like you just did.
[quote]1. there is no direct evidence short of hearsay, which isn't held as concrete evidence in any court case.[/quote]
the "hearsay" was confirmed by Gröning himself. do your research.
[quote]2. you can't try someone multiple times for the same crime, double jeopardy.[/quote]
yes you can, because he was never acquitted in the first place.
[quote]3. the trial holds no grounds in serving justice as there is no justice to be had against someone who was at the time powerless to act otherwise without provoking their death/harm or their family's death/harm. At the time it would be also said that he was brainwashed from quite a young age to believe in what he was doing, that would make him a victim of intense psychological conditioning and ergo, not fully responsible for his actions.[/quote]
holy shit stop saying this. nobody was ever held at gun point to join the SS "or else". the whole fucking premise behind the SS was zealotry and fanaticism. and only those who showed a heightened will to serve were there - making people a part of the SS by force defeats the damned purpose. furthermore, as Explosions said, requests and approvals for transfers and the likes were commonplace.
[quote]4. the trial isn't impartial as there are can be no impartial jurors or judges due to the radical and deeply seated emotional response that is still had against or for the Nazi party as the direct result of many decades of propaganda that came during and after WWII.[/quote]
what
this is so stupid i don't really know how to respond to this. are you literally saying right now that the Nuremberg trials were null and void because "no one was impartial"?
[quote]5. innocent until proven guilty, the number of people who do not understand this applies to literally EVERYONE is disgusting.[/quote]
ok? the court is in the process of determining his guilt and or innocence.
even though im a jew and all i never understood this absolutely retarded reasoning on FP of not putting old men on trial just because they committed crimes a long time ago. how about we dont put kosovo war criminals on trial either because they were also brainwashed and committed them years ago? where do you draw that arbitrary gap between the time of crime and the age of the person? it's fucking stupid. especially in cases like this, where we aren't talking about a person shoplifting a snack 75 years ago. this guy was (in a very small) way contributing to literally one of the most horrific crimes against humanity in history. that deserves, at the very least, a thorough investigation. after that, let the courts decide if he deserves sentencing.
but don't skip all of that and just go "omg hes an old man let him be!!" because age does not play a role here. even if he's sorry, filled with remorse, or has very little time left. this is how the law system works and should work, period.
What a fucking waste of time, money, and resources. He's 93 and admitted he's guilty, let it go. He was just one in hundreds of thousands brainwashed youth during the war, the only people that should be getting the hammer of justice are the ones at the head of the government and military, the people who gave the orders.
I bet everyone else here would've done the same shit, because if you said 'Oh, that's [I]evil[/I]! I could never do such a thing' Oh, whoopsie! Your entire family is dead. Or you maybe would've been one of the brainwashed mass.
[QUOTE=The golden;47571043]I don't mean to be "that guy" but I'm going to request sources on this.
Not claiming the other side is right, but I would like sources for your claim.[/QUOTE]
I can remember off the top of my head the story of a doctor at Auschwitz named Munch or something similar. He refused to cooperate with the extermination or any of the "experiments" conducted there and nothing happened to him.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_M%C3%BCnch]Here[/url], his Wikipedia article describes his story and you can probably find other stuff about him.
Just doing a quick Google search comes up with a bunch of other stuff too. [url=http://www.colorado.edu/ReligiousStudies/chernus/4800/Kittterman.pdf]This essay[/url] does a pretty good job of describing the circumstance of soldiers order to partake in murders or other atrocities who refused to do so. Out of the 100 cases it noted, only 8 of them had any serious consequences.
I understand he's old and this is way past being worth doing. But it's stupid how many people are baselessly defending him. I agree it's not worth investigating or prosecuting but are people seriously justifying his actions, even if they're half a century old?
[QUOTE=Punchy;47571299]I understand he's old and this is way past being worth doing. But it's stupid how many people are baselessly defending him. I agree it's not worth investigating or prosecuting but are people seriously justifying his actions, even if they're half a century old?[/QUOTE]
No.
When you say people are "justifying" his actions you would be wrong on just about every count.
Whether or not he did do something to help the Nazis, with this mentality anyone who gets away with a crime gets a free pass when they go past midlife because they might end up dead sooner or later, how jolly.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47569239]Let me guess. "He's old so it doesn't matter". He still comitted the crime and age shouldn't be a barrier between the morals and the law.
[editline]21st April 2015[/editline]
Literally ninja'd but my point exactly[/QUOTE]
He's only being charged with accessory. He was probably a drafted kid just like many of the soldiers of WW2. Can we really charge individual soldiers like this? He wasn't a commander, he was a damn book keeper. Charging individuals soldiers who had no choice for crimes his country and commanders are responsible for is stupid. It's like locking a kid in his room, and then punishing the kid for not going to school instead of the parents
you guys understand there is basically 0 chance of him actually getting a prison sentence at that age right
he's being charged and he is going to be found guilty but his sentencing will go something like "due to your age, remorsefulness and the great length of time which has passed since the crime the court does not believe a prison sentence would do any good" or something
at least I hope. I thought these convictions were more symbolic than anything. If I'm wrong please correct me.
What is up with all these Nazi grunts getting put on trial for a war crime they probably didn't even want to commit?
I don't think members of the allgemeine ss are poor grunts who didn't want to be mean to other people
SHould've take the money this stupid trial costs and do something productive with it not this sharade that helps noone.
[QUOTE=Punchy;47571299]I understand he's old and this is way past being worth doing. But it's stupid how many people are baselessly defending him. I agree it's not worth investigating or prosecuting but are people seriously justifying his actions, even if they're half a century old?[/QUOTE]
No one is justifying his actions in this thread. Jesus Christ.
[QUOTE=martijnp3000;47569468]It was never perfectly legal, i'm pretty sure the Polish (or whatever country's) government didn't sign the go ahead with the gassing and/or torture of her citizens?
He worked in a goddamn human meat grinder, anyone who had anything to do with those camps should not just be pardoned.[/QUOTE]
Okay, step into his shoes. Your options:
1.) Keep records
2.) Die
Would you be a martyr? In the moment, probably not.
[QUOTE=gk99;47572022]Okay, step into his shoes. Your options:
1.) Keep records
2.) Die
Would you be a martyr? In the moment, probably not.[/QUOTE]
The same argument could be made to defend a mob accountant or anyone else working in an illegal enterprise with a vague threat of retribution hanging over them if they disobey. Except in this case there is a clear history of different ways soldiers could excuse themselves or turn their duties elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47571284]I can remember off the top of my head the story of a doctor at Auschwitz named Munch or something similar. He refused to cooperate with the extermination or any of the "experiments" conducted there and nothing happened to him.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Münch"]Here[/URL], his Wikipedia article describes his story and you can probably find other stuff about him.
Just doing a quick Google search comes up with a bunch of other stuff too. [URL="http://www.colorado.edu/ReligiousStudies/chernus/4800/Kittterman.pdf"]This essay[/URL] does a pretty good job of describing the circumstance of soldiers order to partake in murders or other atrocities who refused to do so. Out of the 100 cases it noted, only 8 of them had any serious consequences.[/QUOTE]
Your source says that each of the refusers he interviewed "had felt certain they would be shot or placed in a concentration camp for refusing to obey orders."
The fact that they didn't actually face consequences doesn't particularly matter when they were all led to believe that refusal would be a death sentence.
Also, Groening himself requested a transfer after seeing a baby smashed against a truck by a german soldier. His request was denied initially.
Eventually he did get transferred to a front-line unit, which is why he wasn't at Auschwitz when it was liberated and it's guards put on trial.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;47571553]you guys understand there is basically 0 chance of him actually getting a prison sentence at that age right
he's being charged and he is going to be found guilty but his sentencing will go something like "due to your age, remorsefulness and the great length of time which has passed since the crime the court does not believe a prison sentence would do any good" or something
at least I hope. I thought these convictions were more symbolic than anything. If I'm wrong please correct me.[/QUOTE]
Sure, they're mostly symbolic, but the point is to demonstrate Rule of Law. It doesn't matter what age you are, participating in genocide isn't a crime with a statute of limitations.
Having made it to 80 isn't an automatic pardon, nor should it be.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47572843]Sure, they're mostly symbolic, but the point is to demonstrate Rule of Law. It doesn't matter what age you are, participating in genocide isn't a crime with a statute of limitations.
Having made it to 80 isn't an automatic pardon, nor should it be.[/QUOTE]
That argument has been made multiple times, "this is about demonstrating the rule of law", okay...
But the rule of law is usually based on this common thing known as "jurisdiction". Do we demonstrate the rule of law on people who commit crimes out of our jurisdiction? No. we don't.
Under who's jurisdiction is this man being tried? How legal would his incarceration be? What laws did he actually fundamentally break in the country where he was when those laws where broken?
I get it, I'm a big staunch supporter of rule of law. But I don't like people jumping over those questions as easily as so many here have.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47572990]That argument has been made multiple times, "this is about demonstrating the rule of law", okay...
But the rule of law is usually based on this common thing known as "jurisdiction". Do we demonstrate the rule of law on people who commit crimes out of our jurisdiction? No. we don't.
Under who's jurisdiction is this man being tried? How legal would his incarceration be? What laws did he actually fundamentally break in the country where he was when those laws where broken?
I get it, I'm a big staunch supporter of rule of law. But I don't like people jumping over those questions as easily as so many here have.[/QUOTE]
So what laws did Hitler break?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.