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

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088283]Regardless how you put it, it's still allowing people to get away with it(if they're guilty ofc)[/QUOTE] Get away with what? Being a guard?

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50089261]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.[/QUOTE] So you refuse to answer the "why" aspect of this? I don't even have a strong opinion one way or the other I'm asking questions When this mans sentence would involve non stop care for him, what justice is served?

[QUOTE=Megadave;50088358]I think living 70 or so years with the guilt of what he contributed to is more than enough punishment.[/QUOTE] This can not be stressed enough, especially when you were forced to follow the orders of your superiors or be shot. I can understand putting him on trial to at least get closure but some people take it way too far on the revenge fantasy.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50089340]This can not be stressed enough, especially when you were forced to follow the orders of your superiors or be shot. I can understand putting him on trial to at least get closure but some people take it way too far on the revenge fantasy.[/QUOTE] He was a volunteer

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50089174]What justice is being served by going after a war crime 70 years later?[/QUOTE] What justice is being served by going after a war crime 60 years later? 50? 40? 30? What's your statute of limitations on genocide? At what point do you decide that it's not worth pursuing? Because it seems [I]extremely[/I] arbitrary to me to just say 'oh he's old, it's not worth prosecuting'. You could have said that when he was 73 and then he'd go on to live another twenty years. It's true that unlike a serial killer, he's unlikely to offend again, but that was just as true in 1950 as it is today. The point of the trial is to establish culpability, determine guilt or innocence, and provide some level of closure for the survivors who still live today- as opposed to essentially giving former Nazis a pardon as if time has lessened the magnitude of their crimes. [QUOTE=LtKyle2;50089340]This can not be stressed enough, especially when you were forced to follow the orders of your superiors or be shot.[/QUOTE] Again, this is bullshit. You are taking Nazis at their word when they said they had to follow orders, when there is ample historical evidence showing that they could be reassigned- to say nothing of the fact that this guy was an SS-Totenkopf volunteer.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50089372]Again, this is bullshit. You are taking Nazis at their word when they said they had to follow orders, when there is ample historical evidence showing that they could be reassigned- to say nothing of the fact that this guy was an SS-Totenkopf volunteer.[/QUOTE] But we don't know if this guy could. Hundreds of thousands wished to leave southern Russia, and they couldn't. And SS-Totenkopf wasn't entirely for concentration camps, in the beginning it was only a panzer division. These soldiers were recruited from concentration camps, but that was during the early part of the war when the genocides hadn't started (they where preparing and later transporting jews and poles). I don't know when this guy joined the Totenkopf so this may be unrelated.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50088830]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. [/QUOTE] This isn't necessarily true. Wernher Von Braun was in the SS, but he didn't align with Nazi ideologies. He more or less had to be in the SS to further his work in rocketry. Doesn't change your argument, I just wanted to point this out.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50089261]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.[/QUOTE] You're exactly who this guy is making fun of [QUOTE=Passing;50088130]Witchhunt? That's the only way to describe it. You happen to deliver milk during the second world war in Germany. [B]Why didn't you stop Hitler and the Holocaust?![/B][/quote] The dude would've been killed for disobeying. [I]naw bro he shouldve went rambo on their asses shot everyone one of em dead son, y'na mean?[/I]

-snip im done-

[QUOTE=catbarf;50089372]What justice is being served by going after a war crime 60 years later? 50? 40? 30? What's your statute of limitations on genocide? At what point do you decide that it's not worth pursuing? Because it seems [I]extremely[/I] arbitrary to me to just say 'oh he's old, it's not worth prosecuting'. You could have said that when he was 73 and then he'd go on to live another twenty years. It's true that unlike a serial killer, he's unlikely to offend again, but that was just as true in 1950 as it is today. The point of the trial is to establish culpability, determine guilt or innocence, and provide some level of closure for the survivors who still live today- as opposed to essentially giving former Nazis a pardon as if time has lessened the magnitude of their crimes. Again, this is bullshit. You are taking Nazis at their word when they said they had to follow orders, when there is ample historical evidence showing that they could be reassigned- to say nothing of the fact that this guy was an SS-Totenkopf volunteer.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I'm asking questions not making statements, maybe you could respect that I'm not saying I know what's best and that I'm simply asking a question, something I didn't know was such a huge problem in relation to this topic. Yeah what is the difference between incarcerating a 30, a 40, a 50, a 60, a 70, a 80, and a 90 year old? What is the difference? Is there a difference? Does a 90 year old in prison require the same care and treatment as a 30 year old? If he was 73, I would be asking the questions I am now, but we in that situation, would also be 20 years closer to the tragedies in question so the situation is a little different, isn't it? Or is it arbitrary and stupid to not have locked down opinions on this that will never change as many as you seem to have?

[QUOTE=Kylel999;50089480]-snip im done-[/QUOTE] Shouldn't have snipped that, it was actually true, even in current Germany.

[QUOTE=The bird Man;50089391]But we don't know if this guy could. Hundreds of thousands wished to leave southern Russia, and they couldn't. And SS-Totenkopf wasn't entirely for concentration camps, in the beginning it was only a panzer division. These soldiers were recruited from concentration camps, but that was during the early part of the war when the genocides hadn't started (they where preparing and later transporting jews and poles). I don't know when this guy joined the Totenkopf so this may be unrelated.[/QUOTE] He served in the SS at a concentration camp in 1942-43 as a volunteer, so he knew what he was getting into. [QUOTE=Kylel999;50089450]The dude would've been killed for disobeying.[/QUOTE] For the umpteenth time, that's [b]bullshit[/b]. [url=http://www.yadvashem.org/download/about_holocaust/studies/aly_full.pdf]Read this[/url] and stop with the 'they had no choice!' Nazi apologism already.

[QUOTE=Kylel999;50089450]You're exactly who this guy is making fun of The dude would've been killed for disobeying. [I]naw bro he shouldve went rambo on their asses shot everyone one of em dead son, y'na mean?[/I][/QUOTE] There's no proof of this. In fact, other posters have said otherwise.

I can understand holding a trial for the purpose of closure, but sending a 93 year old man to prison for guarding an internment camp 70 years ago is absurd.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50089489]I don't know, I'm asking questions not making statements, maybe you could respect that I'm not saying I know what's best and that I'm simply asking a question, something I didn't know was such a huge problem in relation to this topic. Yeah what is the difference between incarcerating a 30, a 40, a 50, a 60, a 70, a 80, and a 90 year old? What is the difference? Is there a difference? Does a 90 year old in prison require the same care and treatment as a 30 year old? If he was 73, I would be asking the questions I am now, but we in that situation, would also be 20 years closer to the tragedies in question so the situation is a little different, isn't it? Or is it arbitrary and stupid to not have locked down opinions on this that will never change as many as you seem to have?[/QUOTE] Okay, fair enough, my mistake in misunderstanding your intentions. It just sure seems like special pleading when people say that former Nazis should get off the hook simply because they're old. I don't know that I agree with locking up ninety-year-olds, but declining to prosecute altogether does a disservice to everyone who suffered under the Nazi regime by essentially giving a full pardon. In my perfect world every caught Nazi would be put on trial, and if convicted would be given not a prison sentence, but a form of community service- a duty to document their experience and contributing to Holocaust awareness and outreach, to counter the rising wave of Holocaust denial. Let them live out their last years in peace, but have them do their part to make sure it never happens again, and leave no doubt as to their culpability or innocence.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50089558]Okay, fair enough, my mistake in misunderstanding your intentions. It just sure seems like special pleading when people say that former Nazis should get off the hook simply because they're old. I don't know that I agree with locking up ninety-year-olds, but declining to prosecute altogether does a disservice to everyone who suffered under the Nazi regime by essentially giving a full pardon. In my perfect world every caught Nazi would be put on trial, and if convicted would be given not a prison sentence, but a form of community service- a duty to document their experience and contributing to Holocaust awareness and outreach, to counter the rising wave of Holocaust denial. Let them live out their last years in peace, but have them do their part to make sure it never happens again, and leave no doubt as to their culpability or innocence.[/QUOTE] and your opinions sounds much more well reasoned and thought out than some of the other opinions bandied about here. My only intention was to ask questions and test the boundaries of peoples own arbitrary standards and thoughts.

I thought they decided at Nuremburg that only the top dogs would get prosecuted. Why would they do this to a footsoldier. Regardless, I hate the argument that "he's too old, let him go". NOBODY IS SAYING WE SHOULD PUT HIM IN JAIL. What we're saying is that we should try him, and find him guilty/not guilty. At least this way justice was done.

I would like to point out concerning the SS-TV that all the volunteers were chosen for their brutality and their lack of emotions. A great number of them had been through prison (and the conscripted guards were recruited there too, they weren't normal civilians), were convicted murderers and all the other kind of niiice people you could find in german prisons back then. In this case it's not a bookkeeper that was going to be punished, it was a camp guard, who where, as I said earlier, ruthless and brutal, beating up prisonners for no reason was part of their daily routine. People who think they would regret this after the war are naive. And even if they did, acts matter more than words, just giving a little bit of money to the families of holocaust survivors or victims could be enough. Throwing him in jail would have been unnecessary though, but trying him is more of a symbol than a punishment honestly, a way to show that your crimes should not be forgiven due to them having been commited a long time ago.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;50088150]I really don't know how to feel about these sorts of trials. On one hand, I don't think being old excuses anyone from crimes they may or may not have committed but on the other hand, it's a waste of time and it accomplishes nothing. Seems as though they're better off chiseling "nazi scum" on their gravestone or have their crimes immortalized somewhere for all eternity if found guilty beyond a reasoable doubt[/QUOTE] It serves no purpose other than to set an example, which isn't really set because who the hell cares if they condemn them or not.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088203]Do you guys actually believe people should be exempt for standing trial because of their old age?[/QUOTE] It's more about the harassment of old people because of Nazi-themed witchhunts. And sure, it's totally justified if they happily volunteered for heinous war crimes, but these sort of things are grasping at straws at this point. The train of thought is the same misguided bullshit where people think German Soldier in WWII = ravenous SS Jew-Hating Hitler-Loving Nazi. Just because someone was assigned some menial job at/near a concentration camp should not indite them of any crime, and saying "well they should have done something/left!!!!" is victim blaming at its' finest. Funny how this shit still continues with far less/no outcry for conditions in Japan (Unit 731), Russia (Gulags), US (Japanese Internment Camps), etc. Wonder what these valiant individuals are going to do with their free time when the remaining WWII-involved German population die off of old age.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50089495][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Totenkopfverb%C3%A4nde[/url] Can you guys please look stuff up before you post? SS-TV is a different branch. Total volunteer, total... psychopath, for lack of a better word.[/QUOTE] I did and you did not respond to the statement that they had no intention of genocide in the beginning. And how do I know this? Because I did look up, so stop shooting yourself in the leg. Also stop using wikipedia as the main source, it hardly justifies your own research. Look at this guy, atleast he can reply properly: [QUOTE=catbarf;50089506]He served in the SS at a concentration camp in 1942-43 as a volunteer, so he knew what he was getting into.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=FpShepard;50088060]The stress from this whole thing probably was one of the factors for his death. Well fucking done, guys. Couldn't even let an old man live out last years of his life in peace.[/QUOTE] I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that because of him and many many others like him, millions of other people couldn't live out the last years of their lives in peace. I don't understand why people seem to think that they should just get away with their horrific crimes because it was 70 years ago. If he was some poor ass conscripted Wehrmacht soldier sure, but he was SS Totenkopf, aka volunteer scum.

[QUOTE=Doom14;50089883]and saying "well they should have done something/left!!!!" is victim blaming at its' finest.[/QUOTE] Holding a [i]volunteer SS Totenkopf guard[/i] accountable for his involvement when he had every opportunity to request a different assignment or simply not volunteer for the SS in the first place is victim blaming? You're saying the volunteer SS guard is the real victim of the Holocaust? [QUOTE=Doom14;50089883]US (Japanese Internment Camps)[/QUOTE] Probably because the Japanese internment camps, while frequently brought up in the context of American mistreatment of minorities, didn't murder eleven million people. Details, details.

[QUOTE=The bird Man;50092379]I did and you did not respond to the statement that they had no intention of genocide in the beginning. And how do I know this? Because I did look up, so stop shooting yourself in the leg. Also stop using wikipedia as the main source, it hardly justifies your own research. Look at this guy, atleast he can reply properly:[/QUOTE] oh great its one of those people who thinks wikipedia is a bad source

[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. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] But all of the people responsible for the genocide are[i] fucking dead.[/i] This is just a witch hunt for anyone even remotely connected to germany at the time.[/QUOTE] So how far up the command chain do you set the difference between "followed orders" and "gave orders" ? [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;50088726]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: 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.[/QUOTE] Could we put this in the OP please because people obviously don't read shit.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088203]Do you guys actually believe people should be exempt for standing trial because of their old age?[/QUOTE] If you're old and commit a crime, no, you get a trial like everyone else. But if it's something that happened 73 years ago, let them die in peace...

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50093030]If you're old and commit a crime, no, you get a trial like everyone else. But if it's something that happened 73 years ago, let them die in peace...[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Araknid;50092708]I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that because of him and many many others like him, millions of other people couldn't live out the last years of their lives in peace[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Melnek;50092810]oh great its one of those people who thinks wikipedia is a bad source[/QUOTE] Wikipedia IS a bad source.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50093182]Wikipedia IS a bad source.[/QUOTE] it's a source of sources, whichever claim it posts has a plethora of sources attached to it (almost after every single sentence) backing up said claim. if you want to dispute a claim simply check its sources and verify them yourself. that's why it's literally the best source out there. it combines every other source from opposite spectrums of a given argument so that you may make up your own mind whether what you're reading is trustworthy or not. people who are too retarded to check the sources wikipedia posts have no place to call it a bad source.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50089246]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] The point isn't the punishment, but to use the justice system to declare him [B]guilty.[/B] He lived his entire life without conviction, and now he was to be trialled for his crimes. It doesn't matter what his age is.