Suprise! Former Auschwitz Guard Dies a Week Before the Trial - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50088300]You should not be exempt from trial over being a part of [I]genocide[/I] due to your age. It's a trial, due process of law. Be glad someone like Mossad just didn't cap him and call it a day.[/QUOTE] So what's being accomplished in this case by making it a priority in the legal system over other cases?

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088451]Alright, I can compromise to that but does this idea apply to just in a war scenario or, for example, serial killers as well? Because I'm not sure how anyone could be fine with allowing a person that spent his/hers youth going around murdering innocent people and nothing happening to him despite the evidence because he hasn't done anything bad in 50 years and is an elder now.[/QUOTE] Thats different. Its why cases dont just happen in the span of five minutes. You need to treat everything as its own thing. Someone being forced to do something under the penalty of death is different than a psycho murdering people to fulfill some fantasy of his.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088451]Alright, I can compromise to that but does this idea apply to just in a war scenario or, for example, serial killers as well? Because I'm not sure how anyone could be fine with allowing a person that spent his/hers youth going around murdering innocent people and nothing happening to him despite the evidence because he hasn't done anything bad in 50 years and is an elder now.[/QUOTE] That delves more into things like the purpose of the justice system in the first place. Is it meant for rehabilitation, or punishing the offender? If it's for rehabilitation, then it's pointless because for one thing, he no longer poses a threat to society, and for another, he's probably gonna be dead pretty soon anyway. On the other hand, if the justice system is meant purely for punishing the offender, then that fits mainly under the "revenge fantasies" aspect of it. Because at this point, the only two reasons to punish him would be for revenge, or to make an example out of him that you can't escape consequences of your crimes. That part shows some point to it, and I won't deny that making examples out of people is a concept that exists in most justice systems. So, the question is, is it worth it? Is it worth it to spend all that money on court costs just to make absolute sure that an example is made out of this one person who dared to follow his country's orders some 70 years ago? I personally don't think so. Nothing is ultimately gained from it.

I don't understand putting Guards on trial in the first place, just because he was told to do his job.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088451]Alright, I can compromise to that but does this idea apply to just in a war scenario or, for example, serial killers as well? Because I'm not sure how anyone could be fine with allowing a person that spent his/hers youth going around murdering innocent people and nothing happening to him despite the evidence because he hasn't done anything bad in 50 years and is an elder now.[/QUOTE] I want you to understand the fact that the counter scenario you proposed is not a sound, logical comparison in this situation. A serial killer acts on their own accord when they are carrying out crimes. A conscripted worker carries out orders, and suffers severe penalties (in the case of Nazi Germany, execution) for not carrying out orders. Punishing individual workers for the crimes of the governing body and its administrators does not have any logical or legal precedent. I want you to also place yourself in his perspective. What (if anything) would you do differently?

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50088648]Actually: I don't think those are conscripts. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Command_and_control[/URL][/QUOTE] [quote]Camp duties were increasingly turned over to so-called "Auxiliary-SS", soldiers [B]and civilians conscripted as camp guards[/B] so that the Totenkopf men could escape. However, many were arrested by the Allies and stood trial for war crimes at Nuremberg between 1946 and 1949.[/quote] [quote]In the last days of World War II, a special group called the "Auxiliary-SS" (SS-Mannschaft) was formed as a last-ditch effort to keep concentration camps running and allow regular SS personnel to escape. Auxiliary-SS members were not considered regular SS personnel,[B] but were conscripted members[/B] from other branches of the German military, the Nazi Party, and the Volkssturm.[/quote] Whether or not he was conscripted in this particular case (I strongly believe Tremmel was conscripted) — the Wiki article shows people were conscripted as guards for the camp. And then they were later tried at Nuremberg.

[QUOTE=Da Big Man;50088259]or be subjected to punishment (up to death) for disobeying said orders[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Glitchman;50088308]If he was to refuse his job in 1942 his life would have been a lot shorter probably[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Starpluck;50088368]If you did not follow what your Nazi leaders ordered you to do, you would be charged with malfeasance and be declared an enemy of the state. These people would be sent to concentration camps.[/QUOTE] This pops up in every thread but [b]it's completely wrong[/b]. The German military understood the psychological obstacles to their killing and soldiers who couldn't handle their assignments were rotated out, not shot or sent to camps. The idea that the German government would murder, imprison, or retaliate again one of their own if they dared step out of line is a complete myth, endorsed by former SS personnel after the war to justify their own involvement. Please [url=http://www.yadvashem.org/download/about_holocaust/studies/aly_full.pdf]read this paper[/url], based on primary sources. I'll post a relevant snippet: [quote]Not a single German who refused to kill a Jew was demoted, sent to concentration camp, assigned to a suicide mission or sentenced to death. On the contrary: such orders commonly included an offer that "anyone who did not feel up to the upcoming task could come forward." Nevertheless, this occurred only in exceptional cases. Those who did opt out were neither taunted nor pressured, but treated with consideration. They were given different duties, often back home. There were always others willing to take over the murders--the "proven pragmatist" Himmler could be sure of that.[/quote] Furthermore, this guy we're talking about [b]was in an SS Totenkopf unit[/b]. They were [i]all[/i] volunteers, to a unit representing the most diehard of the Nazis amongst the SS. This guy was not some poor schmuck conscripted into military service under pain of death and forced to work in a concentration camp. He was a volunteer who passed up every opportunity to change his assignment. Argue about shifting morals versus following orders all you want, but stop regurgitating this apologism that he had no choice.

-snip following the volunteer post- still not entirely sure it's worth modern day resources to put this guy away

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50088720]Whether or not he was conscripted in this particular case (I strongly believe Tremmel was conscripted) — the Wiki article shows people were conscripted as guards for the camp. And then they were later tried at Nuremberg.[/QUOTE] He was there in 1942 and 1943. The SS-Mannschaft, the auxiliary unit you are referring to, did not begin conscripting non-SS personnel to run the concentration camps until late 1943 at the earliest. The dude was a volunteer for the SS-Totenkopf.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50088368]Nazi Germany had conscription. If you did not follow what your Nazi leaders ordered you to do, you would be charged with malfeasance and be declared an enemy of the state. These people would be sent to concentration camps. While I support the trial of members who voluntarily joined criminal organizations, I condemn the act of trying those who were coerced under the penalty of death.[/QUOTE] Since when is asking to be transferred to a different unit/change of role in the military = penalty of death? You are all forgetting the fact that contrary to popular belief, if you were told to go to a camp and guard it you could simply file a request to be transferred to a different unit due to a variety of reasons and such requests were often approved because you had to pretty much be completely brainwashed to witness the systematic slaughter of human beings and not literally have a mental breakdown. Basically everyone who served in and around the camps either wanted to be there or knew about the atrocities and didn't give a shit. You guys should really stop propagating this retarded myth of "they had no choice". They did have a choice. They just simply didn't care enough. It's why this man was supposed to be on trial. Nobody was coerced to serve in a concentration camp. Ever.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50088329]Guilty of what, though? He was a guard. He had no choice in the matter. As awful as the implications of "just following orders" can be, thats exactly what he was doing. Its not like he was in charge of pumping in Zyklon-B. [/QUOTE] SS soldiers at the camps were not regular army wehrmacht; SS was the personal soldiers of Hitler and the Nazi party. You didn't just join up to the SS unless you were ideologically a Nazi. Though the Nazi party and the government were one and the same, the SS worked directly for the party, not the government and answered only to party officials, not military officials. The so-called "Nuremberg" defense is weak because while it's true they were "following order", they themselves were heavily scrutinized to meet Nazi ideological standards. It's hard to imagine even an SS accountant at Auschwitz NOT harboring hatred for the Jews or some feeling of satisfaction for the mission they were carrying out there. Furthermore, he was not Waffen-SS, and he was not even regular SS; He was Totenkopf. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/SS_Totenkopf.jpg[/t] That's right: those guys. He, and all of his coworkers, were taught to hate the Jews they imprisoned and murdered. They were taught that they were not human, they were lower than rats that deserved to be exterminated like a pest would. They were taught that life only has value if you're a good german, and that all other life is worthless. So I personally think this guy got away with his crime for 70 years too long. I hope every day of those 70 years were hell for him

[quote]So I personally think this guy got away with his crime for 70 years too long. I hope every day of those 70 years were hell for him[/quote] that's a little ridiculous don't you think? i agree that the crime shouldn't be forgotten because he wasn't forced to do it and he volunteered, HOWEVER who knows if he had realized his wrongdoing that past 70 years. 70 years is a LOOONG time I hope he had a good life, but lived in regret because of what he contributed to. If he doesn't regret it then that's awful, but I guess we'll never know.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088283]Regardless how you put it, it's still allowing people to get away with it(if they're guilty ofc)[/QUOTE] Well after 70 years, they got away anyway, they already won, nothing we can do about it that matters. At this point prosecuting them is petty.

[QUOTE=proch;50088903]Well after 70 years, they got away anyway, they already won, nothing we can do about it that matters. At this point prosecuting them is petty.[/QUOTE] That's right we should let war criminals know that if you successfully escape prosecution eventually we'll stop caring.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50089073]If you escape for 70 years, you've earned it. That's almost three times my life I've lived on this earth, that is a [I]ridiculous[/I] amount of time. If we really cared that much, we would've caught them way before now.[/QUOTE] am i glad people like you don't dictate the justice system "this criminal went through a lot of effort to escape justice, were not even mad, were impressed, let him go fellas"

It's amusing to me that people still believe in the holohoax. You lock up suspected enemies of the state just like USA, Canada and Australia did, but if you lose suddenly you're the worst of the worst till the end of time.

[QUOTE=Melnek;50089100]am i glad people like you don't dictate the justice system "this criminal went through a lot of effort to escape justice, were not even mad, were impressed, let him go fellas"[/QUOTE] But we should be clamboring to have the opposite eh? Why? I mean I understand this man broke laws, and was a monster, but lets be clear here What exactly is being accomplished here by having a trial this many years later after not a crime, but a war. You and many posters here are quick to say "So you'd just let a serial killer walk away after that long" no, that's not really it and that's a massive assumption. I think the difference between a serial killer, and this guy is the capacity to still do harm. This guy isn't still running a nazi camp and probably wasn't still killing jews. A serial killer is likely still a serial killer even 30 years later. What form of justice is actually being carried out here?

[QUOTE=Pascall;50088109]I'm not sure what they stood to gain by putting a 93 year old man on trial. I can see why it would be necessary for someone young enough that a jail sentence would actually make sense. But this man was practically on his way out already. If he hadn't died before he trial, he would have died in prison.[/QUOTE] It's about justice. You can argue about the necessity due to his age as much as you want, it's about justice for everyone involved.

[QUOTE=DrDevil;50089142]It's about justice. You can argue about the necessity due to his age as much as you want, it's about justice for everyone involved.[/QUOTE] But is it? Can you explain how this is justifying anything or how this actually does much of anything even in an ideal circumstance this long after?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50089124]What form of justice is actually being carried out here?[/QUOTE] What legitimacy does "justice" have if you give the impression that some sort of events/crimes can go free of consequence?

[QUOTE=Dr.C;50088206]How do you know it was stress from the trial? the guy was 93. He's been at the age where he's been on the way out for over 20 years [I][B]and he was in frail health meaning he already had his feet in the grave[/B][/I][/QUOTE] Yeah and the stress of being told at 93 you're gonna go to trial for something you did [I]70 fucking years ago[/I] would probably be enough to finish the job

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50089165]What legitimacy does "justice" have if you give the impression that some sort of events/crimes can go free of consequence?[/QUOTE] so if 2000 nazi guards in their 80's and 90's, on deaths door, were found tomorrow, you'd say it would be worth the, say, 500 million euro's to go through that trial process? What justice is being served by going after a war crime 70 years later? It's not about obeying the modern day laws and you can't even argue that it would be

I guess I'll just have to live with the idea that crime can go unpunished and according to some people, should.

He sounds like a real piece of shit tbh But I don't know what sense of justice people were looking to get out of this, most people who committed war crimes for the Nazi's weren't even prosecuted

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50089218]I guess I'll just have to live with the idea that crime can go unpunished and according to some people, should.[/QUOTE] How about you live with "answering my questions" rather than trying to be snarky and condescending Or is that too much effort and too much introspect for you to deal with? [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] If asking you "What kind of justice is this" and your response is "Well I guess that's just what you believe" it's pretty obvious who's being intellectually dishonest, IMO

[QUOTE=DrDevil;50089142]It's about justice. You can argue about the necessity due to his age as much as you want, it's about justice for everyone involved.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what degree of justice would have been earned, though. Undoubtedly whatever prison he would have been put in - if one at all - would likely be equivalent to hospice considering his age and health. Is there a difference just because a judge dictated that he's being "punished" even when the punishment may have been the same as it would be if he'd never been sentenced at all? I'm all for criminals of war to see the effects and consequences of their actions, but at what point does it become fruitless?

[QUOTE=Glitchman;50088308]If he was to refuse his job in 1942 his life would have been a lot shorter [B]probably[/B][/QUOTE] They would 100%. People that disobeyed these orders were jailed, executed and sometimes got themselves put in concentration camps. [QUOTE=Gwoodman;50089165]What legitimacy does "justice" have if you give the impression that some sort of events/crimes can go free of consequence?[/QUOTE] You don't seem to understand the history of Nazi Germany. There were different situations and norms back then. You couldn't just escape and leave your family and jump the border, it's not Mexico. Following these orders was an act of survival. Under state laws made by the higher order, this was a genocide, but not illegal during that timeframe. Do you have any idea how many civilians the Red Army killed? A lot of them were their own; lets hunt and prosecute them all and spend millions of money that could be spent on things that could benefit citizens living standards (aka priorities, think on the current lives). If you really wish to solve this problem and bring 'whatever type of justice you're looking for', start by improving the economy, and the justice system so these people can be caught sooner, instead of wasting time and resources for a couple of years that won't matter (solve the source of the problem, don't push it away). Yes it's a pitty they go free, but for Christ's sake, learn to let go and understand that we can use this for something greater, it's worth it. Besides these young individuals was influenced by extreme propaganda: Exterminate these "issues" and save the world by an international superior race. If you were born in an environment that every day forced these ideals into your head, you wouldn't last long; it wasn't 2016 back then where civilians had basic education. They were left suffering after World War 1, and had to blame others. It's just natural. As a society we have to evaluate our choices so they benefit us as a whole. Isolate those who bring harm to others, not people that can no longer be saved, because that's the only way to protect people. Punishment is a mind of revenge, we're supposed to remove the people so others can live peacefully, and this man is no danger to us, only those who commit these horrible crimes in the current. stop holding back development because of one detail. Newton's law: We have to leave something behind to move forward.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50089227]How about you live with "answering my questions" rather than trying to be snarky and condescending Or is that too much effort and too much introspect for you to deal with? [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] If asking you "What kind of justice is this" and your response is "Well I guess that's just what you believe" it's pretty obvious who's being intellectually dishonest, IMO[/QUOTE] I'm not going to agree with you, there's no point in arguing at all. If a man is caught and proven to be involved in the genocide, I'll want him to stand trial regardless of his age.

-snipe-

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088283]Regardless how you put it, it's still allowing people to get away with it(if they're guilty ofc)[/QUOTE] Its more complicated when it involves war, its not really always black and white as something like a straight up 1v1 murder. Especially 60+ years later.