Oskar Groening: 'Auschwitz book-keeper' jailed for four years over role in murder of 300,000 people - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Irockz;48211412]Jesus fucking Christ hes 94, give the poor guy a break[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter how old he is [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] I mean there are a lot of exceptions and excuses in this thread, maybe he couldn't do anything about it for fear of being offed or whatever but still

[QUOTE=Kylel999;48212392]It doesn't matter how old he is [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] I mean there are a lot of exceptions and excuses in this thread, maybe he couldn't do anything about it for fear of being offed or whatever but still[/QUOTE] He was just a book keeper. Even the complaints that he registred were ignored. What was he supposed to do?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48212411]He was just a book keeper. Even the complaints that he registred were ignored. What was he supposed to do?[/QUOTE] He wasn't "just a bookkeeper", read the damn article.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48212411]He was just a book keeper. Even the complaints that he registred were ignored. What was he supposed to do?[/QUOTE] Note that he wasn't executed for complaining. Also note that he wasn't complaining about the systematic killing of Jewish prisoners in general, just that it should be done "[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Gr%C3%B6ning#Tasks"]within a certain framework[/URL]". When he finally decided he didn't want to be part of the murder machine he simply applied for a reassignment [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Gr%C3%B6ning#Great_Britain"]and got it[/URL]. He could have done it right at the start, but again- he didn't have any objection to the idea of killing of Jews.

[QUOTE=Bushi;48212431]He wasn't "just a bookkeeper", read the damn article.[/QUOTE] Point out these passages in the damn article. He also inspected belongings. Something every SS guard did back then who worked in a concentration camp.

This is just disgusting. All in the name of supposed justice, huh?

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48212454]Note that he wasn't executed for complaining. Also note that he wasn't complaining about the systematic killing of Jewish prisoners in general, just that it should be done "[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Gr%C3%B6ning#Tasks"]within a certain framework[/URL]". When he finally decided he didn't want to be part of the murder machine he simply applied for a reassignment [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Gr%C3%B6ning#Great_Britain"]and got it[/URL]. He could have done it right at the start, but again- he didn't have any objection to the idea of killing of Jews.[/QUOTE] I don't see your point. If he didn't have objection that means he automatically made it happen?

The whole issue with superior orders is the laws against them weren't written until after the war. They were only made illegal during the Nuremburg Trials, which means the laws were applied ex post facto. At the time he was book keeper, he did nothing wrong. It was only after the war was it illegal and then punishable. That is the biggest issue I have with this. I also think the argument that playing a small cog in the machine is also shaky. Using that argument, anyone who traded any materials with Germany could be guilty, or the Soviets were guilty of playing a part in the machine. It really illegalizes any sort of positive contact or person with Germany. The whole situation is a mess, but the Allies should have stopped with the big wigs 70 years ago. Instead, they've been running an ex post facto witch hunt going after people with inconsequential roles in the Holocaust.

This is like the third time I've seen an old man getting arrested just because he was at Auschwitz. Let's start rounding up the janitors next. They probably had a hand in the dastardly deeds done within the camp. Who knows what horrible things they might do if they escape?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48212627]I don't see your point. If he didn't have objection that means he automatically made it happen?[/QUOTE] You said "Even the complaints that he registred were ignored. What was he supposed to do?", implying that (a) he actually gave a fuck that he was working in a place dedicated to the industrial murder of innocent people and (b) that there was nothing he could have done about it. In reality he (a) didn't object to the murder and just wished it was done in a more orderly fashion and (b) could have left and at least not participate if he didn't want to, which he did when he finally didn't want to. [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=General_Lee;48212843]The whole issue with superior orders is the laws against them weren't written until after the war. They were only made illegal during the Nuremburg Trials, which means the laws were applied ex post facto. At the time he was book keeper, he did nothing wrong. It was only after the war was it illegal and then punishable. That is the biggest issue I have with this. I also think the argument that playing a small cog in the machine is also shaky. Using that argument, anyone who traded any materials with Germany could be guilty, or the Soviets were guilty of playing a part in the machine. It really illegalizes any sort of positive contact or person with Germany. The whole situation is a mess, but the Allies should have stopped with the big wigs 70 years ago. Instead, they've been running an ex post facto witch hunt going after people with inconsequential roles in the Holocaust.[/QUOTE] Brilliant logic. And if the axis won WW2 mass genocide of minorities would have never been considered a crime anyway. And yet all those poor innocent nazis that simply thought they were doing their patriotic duty had to hang when everyone suddenly decided rounding up and murdering innocent civilians is retroactively not cool anymore. Believe it or not, basic human decency wasn't invented right after WW2 ended. The people participating in nazi atrocities were well aware of the wrongness of what they were doing. That's why they took pains to not document it, and tried to destroy any evidence of it happening when it was clear they were losing the war. Why do you think Groning didn't tell anyone what his previous job was when he was captured? Here's a hint: [QUOTE]He realised that declaring "involvement in the concentration camp of Auschwitz would have a negative response", and so tried not to draw attention to it, putting on the form given to him by the British that he worked for the SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt instead.[3]:287 He did this because "the victor's always right", and that [B]things happened at Auschwitz which "did not always comply with human rights"[/B].[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48213093]quotes[/QUOTE] He's 94, he exposed himself, and he'll have been haunted by the thought of what he's done his entire life. It's just a pathetic move overall to send him to die in jail. Theres prosecuting a high ranking officer who helped plan the camps whos like 65 or something but this is just stupid. Simply a twisted revenge fantasy wishing him a horrible death in jail and nothing more, nothing to do with justice. We might as well start rounding up german citizens who 'didnt do anything about it' too

[QUOTE=fragger0;48213183]He's 94, he exposed himself, and he'll have been haunted by the thought of what he's done his entire life. It's just a pathetic move overall to send him to die in jail. Theres prosecuting a high ranking officer who helped plan the camps whos like 65 or something but this is just stupid. Simply a twisted revenge fantasy wishing him a horrible death in jail and nothing more, nothing to do with justice. We might as well start rounding up german citizens who 'didnt do anything about it' too[/QUOTE] Right. So if anyone in ISIS currently murdering and raping their way through Iraq (or [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1476133"]composing the soundtrack[/URL]) manages to survive to old age he gets a free pass as long as somewhere down the line he kinda feels bad about the whole thing, right? He wasn't a bystander. He was actively involved in CONFISCATING THE PROPERTY OF PEOPLE AS THEY WERE BEING MARCHED OFF THE TRAINS INTO THE GAS CHAMBERS. Stealing the property of innocent people being rounded up and executed with poison gas is bad. Bad enough to be worth at least a few years in prison if you do it. Seriously.

Snip

[QUOTE=Novangel;48211482]While I agree, I don't think someone should be allowed to get away with crime by being old.[/QUOTE] I agree. But this guy never actually killed someone as far as we know. He wrote down what it was and how much each confiscated item was worth.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48213327]Right. So if anyone in ISIS currently murdering and raping their way through Iraq (or [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1476133"]composing the soundtrack[/URL]) manages to survive to old age he gets a free pass as long as somewhere down the line he kinda feels bad about the whole thing, right? He wasn't a bystander. He was actively involved in CONFISCATING THE PROPERTY OF PEOPLE AS THEY WERE BEING MARCHED OFF THE TRAINS INTO THE GAS CHAMBERS. Stealing the property of innocent people being rounded up and executed with poison gas is bad. Bad enough to be worth at least a few years in prison if you do it. Seriously.[/QUOTE] No it's not. Can't tell if your flag makes your post sarcastic. He didn't do shit. He did not kill anyone, he is 94, fucking let go of your sick revenge fantasies already. An ISIS bookkeeper does not deserve jailtime if he's 94. Neither does a nazi one.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48213424]No it's not. Can't tell if your flag makes your post sarcastic. He didn't do shit. He did not kill anyone, he is 94, fucking let go of your sick revenge fantasies already. An ISIS bookkeeper does not deserve jailtime if he's 94. Neither does a nazi one.[/QUOTE] Is this a real post?

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48213093]Brilliant logic. And if the axis won WW2 mass genocide of minorities would have never been considered a crime anyway. And yet all those poor innocent nazis that simply thought they were doing their patriotic duty had to hang when everyone suddenly decided rounding up and murdering innocent civilians is retroactively not cool anymore. Believe it or not, basic human decency wasn't invented right after WW2 ended. The people participating in nazi atrocities were well aware of the wrongness of what they were doing. That's why they took pains to not document it, and tried to destroy any evidence of it happening when it was clear they were losing the war. Why do you think Groning didn't tell anyone what his previous job was when he was captured? Here's a hint:[/QUOTE] I'm not talking to the morality of the situation. Of course it was immoral, but we're not talking about morality, instead we're talking about law. It is an abuse of justice to retroactively apply a penalty to a crime committed when there was no penalty for it. You can't commit a crime if it's not actually a criminal offense. You could commit immoral acts, but it's not a crime until there's something on the books and when the offense was done, there was nothing on the books.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48213327]Right. So if anyone in ISIS currently murdering and raping their way through Iraq (or [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1476133"]composing the soundtrack[/URL]) manages to survive to old age he gets a free pass as long as somewhere down the line he kinda feels bad about the whole thing, right? Bad enough to be worth at least a few years in prison if you do it. Seriously.[/QUOTE] Your opinion, I think it's silly to be punishing a 94 year old man who's had so long to come to terms with what he did and shows extreme remorse this long after the event itself.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48213093]You said "Even the complaints that he registred were ignored. What was he supposed to do?", implying that (a) he actually gave a fuck that he was working in a place dedicated to the industrial murder of innocent people and (b) that there was nothing he could have done about it. In reality he (a) didn't object to the murder and just wished it was done in a more orderly fashion and (b) could have left and at least not participate if he didn't want to, which he did when he finally didn't want to. [/QUOTE] It was just a common job for him. He wasn't part of the crew that did any of the stuff to the prisioners. But just because he didn't care doesn't mean that he helped make it happen. Even without the executions and torture his job would've still be the same.

[QUOTE=General_Lee;48213487]I'm not talking to the morality of the situation. Of course it was immoral, but we're not talking about morality, instead we're talking about law. It is an abuse of justice to retroactively apply a penalty to a crime committed when there was no penalty for it. You can't commit a crime if it's not actually a criminal offense. You could commit immoral acts, but it's not a crime until there's something on the books and when the offense was done, there was nothing on the books.[/QUOTE] Yes. International law says you liable even if by your own laws you were doing a-okay. Sucks for everyone who is committing war crimes believing its perfectly legal, I know. But again- it was perfectly clear even to Groning what he was participating in was absolutely fucking wrong, which is why he his it when he was captured. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;48213512]It was just a common job for him. He wasn't part of the crew that did any of the stuff to the prisioners. But just because he didn't care doesn't mean that he helped make it happen. Even without the executions and torture his job would've still be the same.[/QUOTE] It wasn't "a common job". It was a job related to the mass murder of people. He was perfectly aware of it when he complained to his superiors when it got too messy, just like he was aware of it when he ask for reassignment. Processing the stolen property of the people being gassed next door to you in a death camp isn't and never ever was "a common job".

That's what you get for doing arithmetic.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48213327]He wasn't a bystander. He was actively involved in CONFISCATING THE PROPERTY OF PEOPLE AS THEY WERE BEING MARCHED OFF THE TRAINS INTO THE GAS CHAMBERS. Stealing the property of innocent people being rounded up and executed with poison gas is bad. Bad enough to be worth at least a few years in prison if you do it. Seriously.[/QUOTE] He catalogued it. He didn't take anything himself. Clearly he was uncomfortable with even that so he bailed. Get over this revenge fantasy shit lmao

94? A conviction at that age is practically useless. The guy had his whole life to reflect on what he was apart of.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48213623]Yes. International law says you liable even if by your own laws you were doing a-okay. Sucks for everyone who is committing war crimes believing its perfectly legal, I know. But again- it was perfectly clear even to Groning what he was participating in was absolutely fucking wrong, which is why he his it when he was captured.[/QUOTE] As I said, it was not against international law at the time to carry out orders that were illegal. They only became illegal after the war ended, hence the retrospective enforcement. Before the Nuremburg Trials, it was a defense. After the Great War, the defense was used numerous times and was held up. So no, when the crimes were committed, they were not against international law hence my problem with it. Perhaps the crime itself was against international law, but carrying it out as an order was not a crime against international law until after the war.

[QUOTE=Silentfood;48211659]hot off the press [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb3QUs7SR4g[/media] You've got to remember this guy only was identified because he stood up to Auschwitz deniers and said he was living evidence to account for the historical events. Although there needs to be some form of reasonable justice, you need to identify what is there actually is to convict. He's a war criminal who should have been put on trial a long time ago, now he's a frail old man who struggles to make it into a courtroom.[/QUOTE] 70 years after something happens, I would say "give him mercy" but the fact that he only started speaking about it to shut up the people that believe it never happened? Let the man die in peace.

These "high horse" posts are stupid; it's easy to sit in your comfortable home far away in from the position this person, and others, were in and judge them for not sabotaging the operation (somehow?) or whatever. I suspect it's much harder when you're in the heart of Nazi Germany surrounded by anti-jewish propaganda and by people who appear to have no problem with what is going on. Us humans are social; we a shaped by the (appearance) of society around us. What is perceived as right can be muddied over time, and the Nazis did a good of job of it. [quote]in January 1936 [...] an observer for German Social Democratic Party leaders in exile noted: “The feeling that the Jews are another race is today a general one.”[/quote] Ref: [url]http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007819[/url]

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48211571]Yes, the soldier is accountable. This is why a lot of people tried to get away with Vietnam war crimes with the "I was told to!" excuse and rightfully failed to do so. The US army specifically says that when a superior orders you to commit a crime you should refuse or face the consrquences. The point is to make such crimes personal responsibility of actor. It's much easier to murder innocents when you know you can blame it all on your commander or whatever. This guy could sabotage the camp, he didnt. Not acting still has conequences and here they are. 4 years is extremely tame for assisting a murder of 300 00, I dont find the "just a bookkeeper" excuse good enough.[/QUOTE] World War 2 started the trend of questioning command orders. Before and during World War 2 you could be imprisoned for saying no. [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] Also, this is bullshit because we had actual South American leaders who committed crimes against humanity get away with it because it was legal at the time. There is a massive double standard going on.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48213623]It wasn't "a common job". It was a job related to the mass murder of people. He was perfectly aware of it when he complained to his superiors when it got too messy, just like he was aware of it when he ask for reassignment. Processing the stolen property of the people being gassed next door to you in a death camp isn't and never ever was "a common job".[/QUOTE] But it is. Just like being a janitor in a death camp is a common job, or an accountant or a secretary.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48213327]Right. So if anyone in ISIS currently murdering and raping their way through Iraq (or [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1476133"]composing the soundtrack[/URL]) manages to survive to old age he gets a free pass as long as somewhere down the line he kinda feels bad about the whole thing, right? He wasn't a bystander. He was actively involved in CONFISCATING THE PROPERTY OF PEOPLE AS THEY WERE BEING MARCHED OFF THE TRAINS INTO THE GAS CHAMBERS. Stealing the property of innocent people being rounded up and executed with poison gas is bad. Bad enough to be worth at least a few years in prison if you do it. Seriously.[/QUOTE] If they end up regretting their actions (maybe not raping and killing, but then again this guy never (from what I understand) did either) and unmask themselves by voicing opposition to their earlier actions, I don't get why they should go to jail at a age where they're likely to die within a few years. [QUOTE]He succeeded in securing a transfer only after making his third application, he said in April.[/QUOTE] From the article. Apparently he applied to go to the frontline, and considering he's been doing only desk work throughout the war, I'd say he probably didn't enjoy the KZ that much. From the Wikipedia article it would appear Auschwitz wasn't exactly totally "opt-in" either. I understand wanting a guilty verdict, but actually putting this guy in prison seems thoroughly unneeded.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48213904]If they end up regretting their actions (maybe not raping and killing, but then again this guy never (from what I understand) did either) and unmask themselves by voicing opposition to their earlier actions, I don't get why they should go to jail at a age where they're likely to die within a few years. From the article. Apparently he applied to go to the frontline, and considering he's been doing only desk work throughout the war, I'd say he probably didn't enjoy the KZ that much. From the Wikipedia article it would appear Auschwitz wasn't exactly totally "opt-in" either. I understand wanting a guilty verdict, but actually putting this guy in prison seems thoroughly unneeded.[/QUOTE] Actually, as Germany started losing, Germans had less and had less choice about what they could do.