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

I think most people are over reacting to the sentence. While 4 years without freedom is never 'fun' for the jailed, but being 94 he'll probably be put in a low secuirty prison or something. So I doubt he will have a hard life on the inside. He'll be fine.

[QUOTE=beanhead;48213929]I think most people are over reacting to the sentence. While 4 years without freedom is never 'fun' for the jailed, but being 94 he'll probably be put in a low secuirty prison or something. So I doubt he will have a hard life on the inside. He'll be fine.[/QUOTE] He's 94, he will drop dead within 1-5 years. That's no way to spend your last days. He doesn't need to go to prison as prison is only for people who are a danger to society.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48213979]He's 94, he will drop dead within 1-5 years. That's no way to spend your last days. He doesn't need to go to prison as prison is only for people who are a danger to society.[/QUOTE] Not every not every cell is a cement room with only hole to shit in and bench to sleep on That being said I think the sentence is unnecessary.

[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. 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] International law is fiction. You have no enforcement body and treaties, which is what " international law" is comprised of, do not follow the same procedures as laws in order to be signed. "War crimes" is a thinly veiled justification to kill people we don't like. It isn't law and it certainly isn't justice. If you don't like someone at least have the balls to say you are fucking them over because they are ass clowns, rather than hiding behind bullshit legal justifications. On top of that, you repatriate soldiers, you don't fucking put them on trial. You place commanders on trials, WHICH WE ALREADY DID, and release the soldiers.Otherwise where do you draw the line? You place people in prison because they are a threat to society. This old man is clearly not a threat to society. You don't have to put soldiers in prison because they generally aren't a menace to their OWN SOCIETY.

[QUOTE=GunFox;48214108]International law is fiction. You have no enforcement body and treaties, which is what " international law" is comprised of, do not follow the same procedures as laws in order to be signed. "War crimes" is a thinly veiled justification to kill people we don't like. It isn't law and it certainly isn't justice. If you don't like someone at least have the balls to say you are fucking them over because they are ass clowns, rather than hiding behind bullshit legal justifications. On top of that, you repatriate soldiers, you don't fucking put them on trial. You place commanders on trials, WHICH WE ALREADY DID, and release the soldiers.Otherwise where do you draw the line? You place people in prison because they are a threat to society. This old man is clearly not a threat to society. You don't have to put soldiers in prison because they generally aren't a menace to their OWN SOCIETY.[/QUOTE] Look at this anti semite justifying genocide :rolleye:

[QUOTE=GunFox;48214108]International law is fiction. You have no enforcement body and treaties, which is what " international law" is comprised of, do not follow the same procedures as laws in order to be signed. "War crimes" is a thinly veiled justification to kill people we don't like. It isn't law and it certainly isn't justice. If you don't like someone at least have the balls to say you are fucking them over because they are ass clowns, rather than hiding behind bullshit legal justifications. On top of that, you repatriate soldiers, you don't fucking put them on trial. You place commanders on trials, WHICH WE ALREADY DID, and release the soldiers.Otherwise where do you draw the line? You place people in prison because they are a threat to society. This old man is clearly not a threat to society. You don't have to put soldiers in prison because they generally aren't a menace to their OWN SOCIETY.[/QUOTE] Not only that, but Nuremburg was a farce. We tried to try Admiral Donitz on the grounds of unrestricted submarine, a tactic we used in the Pacific. We tried Commanders on the grounds of War of Aggression, a crime that the Soviets did. We tried them on using prisoner labor, which we also used. No mention of terror bombing, which was disallowed under the Hague Conventions, but was stepped around by deliberate misinterpretation. Nuremberg was simply a tactic to further punish Germany, not uphold the little shreds of justice international law had.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48213666]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[/QUOTE] "Revenege fantasy " makes you sound so damned pretentious. He willingly participated and supported what was being done, as stated he just didn't like the methods in which it was being done. I don't care if he is 94 or 200. He went along with the murder of men women and children. He didn't object to the fact a baby was murdered, he objected to the way it was done. Its as though we are suppose to sympathize with him because he got to live his life out in peace and freedom up until this point. He deserves those four yesrs, and much more than that.

This isn't "justice". This isn't justice at all. [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;48214108] You place people in prison because they are a threat to society. This old man is clearly not a threat to society. You don't have to put soldiers in prison because they generally aren't a menace to their OWN SOCIETY.[/QUOTE] Exactly. If he were to be a threat to society, it surely wouldn't be now at 94. People who cannot comprehend this are hopeless. They misunderstand what prisons are for, or what prisons are supposed to be for anyway. [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;48214481]He deserves those four yesrs, and much more than that.[/QUOTE] Except... he doesn't.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;48214627]This isn't "justice". This isn't justice at all. [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] Exactly. If he were to be a threat to society, it surely wouldn't be now at 94. People who cannot comprehend this are hopeless. They misunderstand what prisons are for, or what prisons are supposed to be for anyway. [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] Except... he doesn't.[/QUOTE] So as long as I pose no threat to anyone else I am free to go? A lot of war criminals really pose no threat once the military they are fighting for has been disbanded. The commandant of auschwitz himself didn't pose any threat once his position was nullified. Why not let him go too?

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48214715]So as long as I pose no threat to anyone else I am free to go? A lot of war criminals really pose no threat once the military they are fighting for has been disbanded. The commandant of auschwitz himself didn't pose any threat once his position was nullified. Why not let him go too?[/QUOTE] Depends on what you consider "free to go", but there is absolutely [B]no[/B] justification to have someone who isn't a threat stuck in a cell or something, isolated from society.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;48214744]Depends on what you consider "free to go", but there is absolutely [B]no[/B] justification to have someone who isn't a threat stuck in a cell or something, isolated from society.[/QUOTE] Free to go, meaning the serve no time in prison. Are free to live among society regardless if they participated in the slaughter of thousands or millions. As long as they don't have the ability to do it again.

[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] So I ask you now What good is 4 years in jail gonna do when he's 94?

[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] So, have you heard of a man named Milgram?

[QUOTE=Deadman;48211606]words[/QUOTE] The only reason that he was found out to be a member of the SS during the war was after he started campaigning against people who were holocaust deniers. He never spoke of anything to his family or friends until 40 years after the war, to quote wikipedia: [quote]Upon his return to Germany he led a normal life, reluctant to talk about his time in Auschwitz. However, more than 40 years later, he decided to make his activities at Auschwitz public after learning about Holocaust denial. He has since openly criticised those who deny the events that he witnessed, and the ideology to which he once subscribed.[/quote] A lot of the witnesses as well actually said good things about him for telling people about his experience there. Unfortunately it seems Germany has a hate-boner for anything closely related to Nazis, so they wern't going to let him off.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48211571]This guy could sabotage the camp, he didnt. Not acting still has conequences and here they are. [/QUOTE] I wasn't aware simply doing nothing rather than being Super-Heroic-Savior-Man makes you a terrible criminal. I mean, granted, it would be cool if he were brave enough to sabotage the camp (if it were even possible for him), but regardless, even though it seems like that's how the law works, it sounds like a fucking silly law.

Ok so if I, say, was the chef at the officers' mess at auschwitz, that means I'm complicit to the holocaust? this is just petty vengeance at this point

Oskar Groening shouldn't go to prison for fucks sake. This is so fucking dumb. This is nothing but a witch hunt for people who served on the axis side in europe. Justice should have a time limit.

[QUOTE=beanhead;48214010]Not every not every cell is a cement room with only hole to shit in and bench to sleep on That being said I think the sentence is unnecessary.[/QUOTE] The guy is 94, it's probably effective enough to give him an ankle bracelet and have someone check in on him from time to time. I doubt he'd be able to really flee anywhere.

90% of the first page consists of people actually paraphrasing the Nuremburg defense

Fuck it, Let's start arresting witnesses too. Those low scum bastards could've stopped it but never did! LYNCH THEM ALL. Give him a break. He did his job. In germany. In the 1940's. What the fuck was he going to do? Have you SEEN auschwitz? I would do anything to get away from being stuck in that shithole.

Groning was a willing and active participant, however ordinary, in an enterprise who's knowing aim was the extermination of millions of people. His guilt is not proportional to how exceptional his role is to the accomplishment of that aim, or whether it was physical or organizational. He has himself said: "For me there's no question that I share moral guilt." He requested to be transferred once - a fact that will certainly come out in trial but overall is not for anyone to judge at face value with only your own feelings as a compass. People may reel at the implication that being ordinary within evil allows a person not to be responsible for their actions, but I disagree. Not that he's guilty - but that he shouldn't stand trial. If not those who staffed and materially supported Auschwitz, the actual place of carrying out the act of killing, then where and who? Absolutely hollow comparing an SS officer to a janitor. [quote] Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Kommodore;48215290]Groning was a willing and active participant, however ordinary, in an enterprise who's knowing aim was the extermination of millions of people. His guilt is not proportional to how exceptional his role is to the accomplishment of that aim, or whether it was physical or organizational. He has himself said: "For me there's no question that I share moral guilt." He requested to be transferred once - a fact that will certainly come out in trial but overall is not for anyone to judge at face value with only your own feelings as a compass. People may reel at the implication that being ordinary within evil allows a person not to be responsible for their actions, but I disagree. Not that he's guilty - but that he shouldn't stand trial. If not those who staffed and materially supported Auschwitz, the actual place of carrying out the act of killing, then where and who? Absolutely hollow comparing an SS officer to a janitor.[/QUOTE] ...And yet, he still shouldn't go to prison, because he poses absolutely no threat to anyone in any way.

and it also happened over 70 years ago

[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] Everyone working in work camps helped the Nazis. Sure, they were forced to, but they could've also chosen to be executed! Wouldn't the world be a better place if we would lock up everyone that survived a work or death camp? No. This man didn't have a choice. Sabotaging the camp would mean certain death.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;48215357]...And yet, he still shouldn't go to prison, because he poses absolutely no threat to anyone in any way.[/QUOTE] Justice in its essence has nothing to do with hypothetical future crimes. [QUOTE=Cuel;48215379]and it also happened over 70 years ago[/QUOTE] Which has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a crime has been committed. Might as well say "He already got away with it."

[QUOTE=Kommodore;48215451]Justice in its essence has nothing to do with hypothetical future crimes.[/QUOTE] Then what does it have to do with? Punishment? But that's wrong.

That's like saying that anyone was in Germany at the time of his rise to power are an accessory to his crimes because they didn't stop it, Four years at the Age of 94. The country is essentially paying his medical bills and living costs.

Mob accountants should not be charged with a crime because they weren't really involved and they might have gotten hurt by mobsters if they said no.

There's no reason for why prison should be a place strictly for punishment or rehabilitation. It's a place of both, first you serve your punishment, then you get rehabilitated.

[QUOTE=Bushi;48215930]There's no reason for why prison should be a place strictly for punishment or rehabilitation. It's a place of both, first you serve your punishment, then you get rehabilitated.[/QUOTE] Why does this 94-year-old man need [I]either?[/I] He's no threat to society, and his crimes were committed 70 years ago. Nobody's defending his actions, the Nazis, or anything else. Objectively speaking, what is gained by placing him in jail? Absolutely nothing beyond petty revenge.