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

I can agree with both sides here. While yes, if he had lived long enough for a trial, he should absolutely been tried for his actions and involvement, especially in light of what others have posted here, regarding his volunteer status. There needs to be closure. However, I also agree with the notion that actually imprisoning him at his age would be a waste of resources.

[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. 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] If he did it 70 years ago he kinda already did get away with it, a trial for something committed so long ago when someone has only a few years left of life anyways is just a farcical waste of money.

[QUOTE=Melnek;50093503]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check the sources wikipedia posts have no place to call it a bad source.[/QUOTE] It's a bad source because it often has outdated and unavailable sources, and most of the time there's only a single source that can not confirm it alone. It's called basic source criticism.

[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] Why are you not answering any of the points that people are bringing up and straw-manning everyone's argument to "he's too old to stand trial"?

[QUOTE=Araknid;50093104]empty quotes[/QUOTE] This is pretty similar to the "eye for an eye" argument which is viewed as barbaric by many. Now, granted, we aren't advocating for gassing the guy here, but honestly what good does it do to prosecute someone this old and this far after the fact? I have seen the argument that we shouldn't let a crime go unpunished, as that sets a bad precedent. But does it, really? Yes, the Holocaust was unequivocally terrible, but the amount of resources necessary to hunt down remaining Nazis, prominent or not, is simply not worth it. I'd be inclined to agree to prosecution if it wasn't 73 years after the fact and the guy wasn't already practically dying, but it's like trying to fit a new timing belt on a car with 400,000 miles. The thing's not going to run much longer, it's a waste of money and effort.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;50088223]It's more or less about the amount of time that has passed and unclear facts about what someone actually did 70+ years ago. Like I understand you need to be prosecuted for the crime but something that happened 70+ years ago? Eh, just seems like there are much bigger issues we could be addressing right now. I don't think anyone is saying "old people shouldn't get punished for crimes"[/QUOTE] The man was a bloody Nazi. [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;50093957]This is pretty similar to the "eye for an eye" argument which is viewed as barbaric by many. Now, granted, we aren't advocating for gassing the guy here, but honestly what good does it do to prosecute someone this old and this far after the fact? I have seen the argument that we shouldn't let a crime go unpunished, as that sets a bad precedent. But does it, really? Yes, the Holocaust was unequivocally terrible, but the amount of resources necessary to hunt down remaining Nazis, prominent or not, is simply not worth it. I'd be inclined to agree to prosecution if it wasn't 73 years after the fact and the guy wasn't already practically dying, but it's like trying to fit a new timing belt on a car with 400,000 miles. The thing's not going to run much longer, it's a waste of money and effort.[/QUOTE] How can justice even be a possibility if something as trivial as time can free someone from their crimes? [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50093182]Wikipedia IS a bad source.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry are we in 2004 here?

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50093973]How can justice even be a possibility if something as trivial as time can free someone from their crimes?[/QUOTE] Oh right because civilized societies don't have things like statutes of limitations. Granted that doesn't apply towards being a Nazi and being responsible for the deaths of innocents, but what exactly is the purpose of seeking justice 73 years ex post facto aside from "The man was a bloody Nazi"?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50094070]Oh right because civilized societies don't have things like statutes of limitations.[/QUOTE] Most countries, the US included, have no statute of limitations on serious crimes like murder. Statutes of limitations exist to force someone who has a potential case to either pursue it or abandon it to prevent petty suits, and to ensure that a defendant is not convicted on the basis of no longer having evidence to demonstrate their innocence. It's primarily about preventing frivolous civil cases where there is either legitimate reason to question the motivations of the accuser, like someone suing for an incident that occurred years ago when they could have sued previously at any time. The point of a statute of limitations isn't to free someone from their crimes, it's to ensure that any trial is fair and sought to address genuine harm. This guy has a substantial amount of solid evidence implicating him in the Holocaust, so the principles underlying statutes of limitations simply don't apply.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50094070]Oh right because civilized societies don't have things like statutes of limitations. Granted that doesn't apply towards being a Nazi and being responsible for the deaths of innocents, but what exactly is the purpose of seeking justice 73 years ex post facto aside from "The man was a bloody Nazi"?[/QUOTE] Imagine killing someone and facing no reprecussions because people didn't find out until 50 years later. It's a pretty shitty precedent to set, suggesting you can get away with murder.

I guess I can commit the worst genocide in history and get away with it as long as I don't get caught for 70 years and play the helpless old man card. Seriously guys, this man didn't rob stores or steal cars 70 years ago, he took part in the [b] fucking holocaust willingly.[/b] I don't give a fuck how old you get or how long you evaded capture, you take part in that shit with your own free will you need to be brought to justice. It's fucked up how people are willing to forgive his crimes simply because it's "inconvenient" to trial him.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;50094458]I guess I can commit the worst genocide in history and get away with it as long as I don't get caught for 70 years and play the helpless old man card. Seriously guys, this man didn't rob stores or steal cars 70 years ago, he took part in the [b] fucking holocaust willingly.[/b] I don't give a fuck how old you get or how long you evaded capture, you take part in that shit with your own free will you need to be brought to justice. It's fucked up how people are willing to forgive his crimes simply because it's "inconvenient" to trial him.[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware that conscription and following orders under threat of death constituted free will.

Damn you people are stubborn, it's been proven almost 10 times in this thread that he was NOT conscripted and that you could totally ask for a re-affectation if killing innocents wasn't your thing. [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] [QUOTE=Melnek;50088800]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] [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. 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] [QUOTE=Hauptmann;50089751]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] Etc, etc..

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50094501]I wasn't aware that conscription and following orders under threat of death constituted free will.[/QUOTE] I'm almost certain it's been stated multiple times he voluntarily joined the SS Totenkopf brigade , an all volunteer force notorious for their genocidal deeds.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50094446]Imagine killing someone and facing no reprecussions because people didn't find out until 50 years later. It's a pretty shitty precedent to set, suggesting you can get away with murder.[/QUOTE] I really think this argument is grasping at straws. Of course you can't get away with murder but there has to be a point where it's not worth the time and resources to prosecute. Also, it's not 50 years, it's 73. The man was 93 when he died. Again, we're on the same page that it's not okay to commit murder and they should be brought to justice, but I have yet not seen a worthwhile argument as to why anyone should spend time and money prosecuting a 93 year old man other that doesn't boil down to "he was a nazi and nazis are bad!!!!!" Because when you spend time and money prosecuting people that old, there's a chance that they'll die at any moment... such as a week before the trial.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50094585]I really think this argument is grasping at straws. Of course you can't get away with murder but there has to be a point where it's not worth the time and resources to prosecute. Also, it's not 50 years, it's 73. The man was 93 when he died. Again, we're on the same page that it's not okay to commit murder and they should be brought to justice, but I have yet not seen a worthwhile argument as to why anyone should spend time and money prosecuting a 93 year old man other that doesn't boil down to "he was a nazi and nazis are bad!!!!!" Because when you spend time and money prosecuting people that old, there's a chance that they'll die at any moment... such as a week before the trial.[/QUOTE] 50 years, 73 years, 20 minutes, what's the fucking difference?

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50094627]50 years, 73 years, 20 minutes, what's the fucking difference?[/QUOTE] Gee I don't know, maybe if you read the part where I'm arguing that it's not worth time and resources to prosecute an old as fuck dude who's right around the corner from death you'll understand my argument. I've only said this twice (well, now, 3 times) and even made an analogy.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50094530]I'm almost certain it's been stated multiple times he voluntarily joined the SS Totenkopf brigade , an all volunteer force notorious for their genocidal deeds.[/QUOTE] Okay, I was mistaken. I still think it's a waste of public resources to try him on principle for something he did 70 years ago when it really achieves nothing to improve society.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50094627]50 years, 73 years, 20 minutes, what's the fucking difference?[/QUOTE] The point is, at least to me, is that a old man on death's door who's lived a full life is being prosecuted, and as fucked up as it is that his actions went unpunished, trying him is just a waste, and there is no closure or justice to be had.

[QUOTE=Blazedol;50094655]The point is, at least to me, is that a old man on death's door who's lived a full life is being prosecuted, and as fucked up as it is that his actions went unpunished, trying him is just a waste, and there is no closure or justice to be had.[/QUOTE] That's only a case of 20/20 hindsight, he could have fully well lived to see through the trial.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50094714]That's only a case of 20/20 hindsight, he could have fully well lived to see through the trial.[/QUOTE] Hm, true. I guess I'd hope for some medical checkups in future cases. Either way though, my point was more that this old man has essentially gotten away with he did, and there comes a point where there's nothing we can do about it.

People, this is about history. You can't find a list of volunteers from a concentration camp and say the guy is without a doubt guilty of being accessory to genocide without letting him defend himself if he's alive no? This isn't about putting these old people in jail either. They can't murder thousands of people a day anymore, but if they have done it, it should be known for certain. Hence trial. Or maybe we should just stop caring altogether who was involved in the holocaust? I mean it's just few million innocent people, right? Who cares. Just let it go already.

Fuck me, this was over 70 years ago. Why wouldn't they just let it all go in the first place? I'm sure that he as well as many others felt guilty as fuck after the war.

[QUOTE=FreyasFighter;50094975]Fuck me, this was over 70 years ago. Why wouldn't they just let it all go in the first place? I'm sure that he as well as many others felt guilty as fuck after the war.[/QUOTE] Nah mate we gotta nail him up as an example for all of those other 85+ year old genocidal maniacs

[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] But if you read the Article he was a member of the SS, not Wehrmacht. The SS was the armed wing of the Nazi Party completely seperate from the Wehrmacht and you had to be a card carrying member of the Nazi Party and specifically sign up for it to join. So that argument doesn't stand up for SS members.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50095062]But if you read the Article he was a member of the SS, not Wehrmacht. The SS was the armed wing of the Nazi Party completely seperate from the Wehrmacht and you had to be a card carrying member of the Nazi Party and specifically sign up for it to join. So that argument doesn't stand up for SS members.[/QUOTE] Death's head unit, specifically.

I think a major contributing factor to why some people think he should essentially get away with it is because it didn't happen in their life time. They only know of the Holocaust from history books so it's a lot easier to write the crime off. It's more difficult to feel a sense of justice needing to be served when you were never personally affected by it.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50095788]I think a major contributing factor to why some people think he should essentially get away with it is because it didn't happen in their life time. They only know of the Holocaust from history books so it's a lot easier to write the crime off. It's more difficult to feel a sense of justice needing to be served when you were never personally affected by it.[/QUOTE] he had his freedom. he won already. throwing him in jail at this point isn't so much justice as it is vengeance. justice is acknowledging the man was a monster, and acknowledging our failure to do more, when it mattered. At this stage, it's not about justice IMO.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50095943]he had his freedom. he won already. [/QUOTE] Is 'if you get away with it long enough anything's legal' the attitude the justice system is supposed to take?

[QUOTE=catbarf;50096714]Is 'if you get away with it long enough anything's legal' the attitude the justice system is supposed to take?[/QUOTE] No maybe read my statements in context rather than trying to create strawmen out of them

[QUOTE=catbarf;50096714]Is 'if you get away with it long enough anything's legal' the attitude the justice system is supposed to take?[/QUOTE] there comes a point where the law fails, and in the case of this and ones similar, we're at that point now. What the law decides to so in that situation is up to the law, but I can't say I don't think trying him could be spent on something better and more purposeful.