MaSS Murdering 89 year old held on Auschwitz charges - Nazi Hunt - Polidicks

Shame on those soldiers for following orders, Certainty Nazis where not asked for loyalty to their government when they built them up to be less then dirt though the brutal training and threats of imprisonment or death like any other country.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45153256][/sigh] Frankly I think they should just stop with this, and close that part of the history book. Concentrate on the Neo-Nazi groups instead, and you'll probably achieve something more.[/QUOTE] yeah sure let the guys that did this go [quote][img]http://en.auschwitz.org/m/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/20080605_1219165467_dzieci_2.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.worldtravelblog.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/auschwitz-birkenau/auschwitz-prisoners.jpg[/img][/quote]

[QUOTE=tirpider;45153526]Just to clear things up, how old is too old to prosecute? We've established that 70 years is long enough that folks should just "get over it". Can the same be said for 50? (I'm already too old to wait 70 years.) What I am getting at is that something like this could really boost book sales. Kill a few hundred children in my basement then spend the next several decades writing a book about it and wait till the right "get over it" time passes and make a killing on the book sales.[/QUOTE] you need to stop you stated before you got tired of repeating the same argument over and over again but that's because you haven't actually responded to any of the previous arguments against you there's waaaay more factors in this crime than there is in any other - the age of the crime being just one of them. while it is indeed pointless to incarnate a man so close to death 70 years on, people on this thread have blasted you with that piece of logic to hell and back, you obviously need to consider other variables. for example. do you have any idea how expensive to keep someone in jail is? when you have an entire human being dependent on the government for survival, it better well be for a good cause. keeping violent criminals off the street or rehabilitating offenders is a good cause, trying to reap a shallow sense of justice is not. he is simply not worth the cost to keep him locked up, especially considering the short time he'll be there for and the fact that 70 years of life would have probably given him plenty of time to reflect on what he was involved in, and if not, chances are he would have committed an actual crime reflective of an insane, violent criminal you are making him out to be. you also have to consider that he was a guard posted at the camp, not anyone higher up. while he was in the position of detaining jewish people, it's far too late to investigate whether or not he was involved in any of the killings or any acts that truly define an "act against humanity." Even if he was involved with what happened there past guarding the fence, there's no way we can know that, and we live in a society where we are innocent until proven guilty. as sensitive as that term is to used around a nazi considering what they're known for, it's applicable to everywhere - there is no difference. most likely, it's not like this guy had the capacity to do anything to stop what was going on there, and even more likely he was forced in that position anyway. no human should be imprisoned for something done under the duress of a sovereign nation. you also need to stop comparing this crime to other random, in comparison mundane crimes. sure, killing children is horrible, but guess what? there's no world war causing global instability and fear, there's no government-turned-movie-super-villians forcing you to become involved with these actions and in 50 years time, there would still be people deeply hurt and wanting true justice for what you did - the same cannot be said about a 89 year old guard.

it's not like he's been charged with anything, they're investigating him, if like he said he was just some guard not even stationed directly at the camp and not responsibly for any atrocities he will be let go. but if he's lying and he was involved with something more serious he'll be punished, like he deserves. i'm not normally one for a punitive justice system, but when it comes to nazi's i'd make an exception [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] and bear in mind that HE is the one claiming he was just a guard and it's not like he's the most unbiased source is it

if he was actually just a stationed guard, just let him go if he actually involve himself in the atrocities, then let him be charged and found guilty pretty sure he won't even be jailed and if he is, it's stupid just let the record show he was a criminal scum if he was one, being old doesn't make you immune being charged

It always makes me cringe just how much Germany tries to show just how not Nazi they are. Its like an over sensitive kid at school who tries to hard to impress

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45153764]it's not like he's been charged with anything, they're investigating him, if like he said he was just some guard not even stationed directly at the camp and not responsibly for any atrocities he will be let go. but if he's lying and he was involved with something more serious he'll be punished, like he deserves. i'm not normally one for a punitive justice system, but when it comes to nazi's i'd make an exception [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] and bear in mind that HE is the one claiming he was just a guard and it's not like he's the most unbiased source is it[/QUOTE] Normally I would agree, but with how fucking insane Germany is with nabbing anyone having anything to do with Nazi Germany I feel like they don't exactly give the...fairest of trials to people like this old man.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;45153814]Normally I would agree, but with how fucking insane Germany is with nabbing anyone having anything to do with Nazi Germany I feel like they don't exactly give the...fairest of trials to people like this old man.[/QUOTE] i don't see anything insane about chasing up leads in regards to possible mass murderers. if you read the article it said they have evidence that is compelling them to investigate further. and as for the trials, is this just your gut feeling or do you have a solid reason for believing the trials are unfair?

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45153662]yeah sure let the guys that did this go[/QUOTE] They should imprison every citizen of the USA for the napalm bombardments in Vietnam, how could you guys let that happen? This guy was simple guard. He did not order anything, he got an order and if he didn't follow it, he was sent away to the Russian front to a certain death, while his family would disappear.

[QUOTE=joost1120;45154096]They should imprison every citizen of the USA for the napalm bombardments in Vietnam, how could you guys let that happen? This guy was simple guard. He did not order anything, he got an order and if he didn't follow it, he was sent away to the Russian front to a certain death, while his family would disappear.[/QUOTE] 1) those who commit intentional civilian casualties should be charged and tried 2) thats what the guy is claiming, that's why he is being charged and tried. they're not throwing him into jail right away, they're going to have an investigation and trial for the purpose to actually find out whether he was a poor soul just guarding the post away from the facility or partook in the atrocities personally

[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;45153691]you need to stop you stated before you got tired of repeating the same argument over and over again but that's because you haven't actually responded to any of the previous arguments against you there's waaaay more factors in this crime than there is in any other - the age of the crime being just one of them. while it is indeed pointless to incarnate a man so close to death 70 years on, people on this thread have blasted you with that piece of logic to hell and back, you obviously need to consider other variables. for example. do you have any idea how expensive to keep someone in jail is? when you have an entire human being dependent on the government for survival, it better well be for a good cause. keeping violent criminals off the street or rehabilitating offenders is a good cause, trying to reap a shallow sense of justice is not. he is simply not worth the cost to keep him locked up, especially considering the short time he'll be there for and the fact that 70 years of life would have probably given him plenty of time to reflect on what he was involved in, and if not, chances are he would have committed an actual crime reflective of an insane, violent criminal you are making him out to be. you also have to consider that he was a guard posted at the camp, not anyone higher up. while he was in the position of detaining jewish people, it's far too late to investigate whether or not he was involved in any of the killings or any acts that truly define an "act against humanity." Even if he was involved with what happened there past guarding the fence, there's no way we can know that, and we live in a society where we are innocent until proven guilty. as sensitive as that term is to used around a nazi considering what they're known for, it's applicable to everywhere - there is no difference. most likely, it's not like this guy had the capacity to do anything to stop what was going on there, and even more likely he was forced in that position anyway. no human should be imprisoned for something done under the duress of a sovereign nation. you also need to stop comparing this crime to other random, in comparison mundane crimes. sure, killing children is horrible, but guess what? there's no world war causing global instability and fear, there's no government-turned-movie-super-villians forcing you to become involved with these actions and in 50 years time, there would still be people deeply hurt and wanting true justice for what you did - the same cannot be said about a 89 year old guard.[/QUOTE] I agree that my comparison to the "normal" crime/atrocity of killing children was bad. Sue me. There are 2 points I was getting at: 1) everyone seems to want to just let it go because it's been X number of years since the events took place. That seems moronic to me. Hate me because I feel folks should be held accountable for their actions. 2) If you deny this guy a trial, then not only do you just let it go, but you also deny him a genuine chance to clear his name in a public and global manner. Otherwise there is always those that will say this man was a Jew killing Nazi. Nice legacy for his family right? If all he did was guard the gate, then let the record reflect that. Ever think this guy might have his own personal issues with it? What if he has been suffering all these years, wondering if his actions were to blame in some part for all that death? This might bring some much needed closure and emotional relief to a man who may have been needlessly beating himself up for all these decades. It was a huge event and it has left cultural scars across many societies. These witch hunts would be witch hunts if we didn't allow the trials. We need the closure, no matter what you kids think. As for the cost.. fuck that. People waste all sorts of money of frivolous shit all day long the world over. You aren't selling me the idea that justice costs too much. Re-read my posts. I never made him out to be a psycho. I never said he did anything. I simply want him to face his trial like any accused. I'm such an asshole.

[QUOTE=joost1120;45154096]They should imprison every citizen of the USA for the napalm bombardments in Vietnam, how could you guys let that happen? This guy was simple guard. He did not order anything, he got an order and if he didn't follow it, he was sent away to the Russian front to a certain death, while his family would disappear.[/QUOTE] hahahaha are you trying to compare those? thats cute. you cant compare airstrikes to a industrial killing machine.

[QUOTE=tirpider;45154500] 1) everyone seems to want to just let it go because it's been X number of years since the events took place. That seems moronic to me. Hate me because I feel folks should be held accountable for their actions. [/QUOTE] No, no it's not what everbody is trying to tell you. It's the only thing you *seem* to pick up. It's not even just the costs of jailing them, how much would go in to FINDING the chaps? Sure, it'd be great if they can place more charges on him then just beeing a guard, if he DID commit any atrocities. But if that's true, they'd surely post the crimes he's beeing accused of too, instead of just what HE said he did. So like some people said, i'm sure a lot of the biggest war criminals got charged already. [QUOTE=SexualShark] you cant compare airstrikes to a industrial killing machine [/QUOTE] I don't know how getting torched by napalm is much better than beeing gassed. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] Besides, are you gonna arrest and try to convict every nazi soldier there was? There's reports of Nazi soldiers shooting women running away with their kids in their arms. Are you gonna arrest ever single former solder, just to put him trough trial, just to be SURE he didn't commit any such crimes?

[QUOTE=MyAlt91;45154681]No, no it's not what everbody is trying to tell you. It's the only thing you *seem* to pick up. It's not even just the costs of jailing them, how much would go in to FINDING the chaps? Sure, it'd be great if they can place more charges on him then just beeing a guard, if he DID commit any atrocities. But if that's true, they'd surely post the crimes he's beeing accused of too, instead of just what HE said he did. So like some people said, i'm sure a lot of the biggest war criminals got charged already. I don't know how getting torched by napalm is much better than beeing gassed. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] Besides, are you gonna arrest and try to convict every nazi soldier there was? There's reports of Nazi soldiers shooting women running away with their kids in their arms. Are you gonna arrest ever single former solder, just to put him trough trial, just to be SURE he didn't commit any such crimes?[/QUOTE] because war is war and i dont remember the US marching the jews, gays, gypsies, etc to the gas chambers.

[QUOTE=tirpider;45154500]I agree that my comparison to the "normal" crime/atrocity of killing children was bad. Sue me. There are 2 points I was getting at: 1) everyone seems to want to just let it go because it's been X number of years since the events took place. That seems moronic to me. Hate me because I feel folks should be held accountable for their actions. 2) If you deny this guy a trial, then not only do you just let it go, but you also deny him a genuine chance to clear his name in a public and global manner. Otherwise there is always those that will say this man was a Jew killing Nazi. Nice legacy for his family right? If all he did was guard the gate, then let the record reflect that. Ever think this guy might have his own personal issues with it? What if he has been suffering all these years, wondering if his actions were to blame in some part for all that death? This might bring some much needed closure and emotional relief to a man who may have been needlessly beating himself up for all these decades. It was a huge event and it has left cultural scars across many societies. These witch hunts would be witch hunts if we didn't allow the trials. We need the closure, no matter what you kids think. As for the cost.. fuck that. People waste all sorts of money of frivolous shit all day long the world over. You aren't selling me the idea that justice costs too much. Re-read my posts. I never made him out to be a psycho. I never said he did anything. I simply want him to face his trial like any accused. I'm such an asshole.[/QUOTE] no. you're still missing the point. ignore the "it's been x number of years" posts from now on - you've agreed that you're unsatisfied with that argument as legitimate as it is. leave it. you have a point with the trial though - in a perfect world, this man would be able to stand a trial and receive the correct punishment, or lack therefor of. however, as you've likened to a witch hunt, i'm gonna play on that - that's what this essentially [I]is.[/I] Look at the title of this thread - "mass murdering." look at what these people call themselves - "nazi hunters." there's a fundamental negative connotation to these people to the point where people can 'hunt' them like animals, and for good reason. but this is why leaving this alone is so pertinent. he's not going to get a fair trial. he's a nazi, and regardless of what he may have or may not have done, he's still seen as a nazi. if you let him free, there'd be public outrage from the vocal group of people who believe nazi's are evil no matter who they are, as if being part of an evil group makes an individual evil. incarcerate him, and you have people who sensibly believe this was a waste of time upset that this actually went through - there's no black and white solutions to problems like this, and it doesn't excuse the exemption of a proper trial, but with a particularly sensitive matter like this you're dealing with a lot more ambiguity. this is why so many people are behind leaving it be, it leaves it in a satisfying grey area until they - morbidly enough - pass away and no longer present a moral issue. I assure you, if this guy had his own personal issues with this and wanted to clear his name, he has opportunities. we live in a world where getting your independent voice out is easier than ever, and not just through the media. unfortunately, bringing attention to himself in an attempt to clear his name would attract the "nazi hunters", which, as i mentioned before, would lead to an ultimately unfair trial publicly persuaded by a certain perception of moral steadiness where none such thing applies. and please, it's never okay to dismiss a point by saying "other people do it who cares". just because it happens doesn't mean it should, and doesn't make that point any less valid. the price of justice, both incarceration, putting him on trial plus transport, etc. is far too much for what I'll refer to again as a shallow sense of justice. justice has been served to him, he's spent his entire life in hiding hopefully ashamed of the millions of lives he's had a part in ruining for what I once again hope was against his will. his twilight years being spent on trial and possibly in jail is not what he deserves.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45154734]because war is war and i dont remember the US marching the jews, gays, gypsies, etc to the gas chambers.[/QUOTE] What. Shooting a woman in the back, and making the challenge to not only kill her, but her kid she is holding in one bullet. But that's just war, and THOSE soldiers shouldn't be brought to court, because war is war. Or what? And no, no gas chambers, but torture and humiliation just as well. So where does that put you? - Mass civilian killings by napalm / bombings (a astonishing +/-1730 civillians in October 20012) - Camps where people get tortured / humiliated, practically stripped of all rights If you'd add these things up I don't see how any of both is any better.

[QUOTE=MyAlt91;45154855]What. Shooting a woman in the back, and making the challenge to not only kill her, but her kid she is holding in one bullet. But that's just war, and THOSE soldiers shouldn't be brought to court, because war is war. Or what? And no, no gas chambers, but torture and humiliation just as well. So where does that put you? - Mass civilian killings by napalm / bombings (a astonishing +/-1730 civillians in October 20012) - Camps where people get tortured / humiliated, practically stripped of all rights If you'd add these things up I don't see how any of both is any better.[/QUOTE] is this a hard concept for you if a us soldier kills a civilian or pow out of spite, thats war crime and he should be held accountable and tried the purpose of napalm bombing wasn't to kill civilians, it was to kill vietcongs, the death of civilians was unintentional the camps in the holocaust was intentionally used to massacre both pow and civilians out of racism, it was war crime, hence why people who wasn't charged in the involvement in it should be charged and tried despite 'age' do you get the difference???

[QUOTE=MyAlt91;45154855]What. Shooting a woman in the back, and making the challenge to not only kill her, but her kid she is holding in one bullet. But that's just war, and THOSE soldiers shouldn't be brought to court, because war is war. Or what? And no, no gas chambers, but torture and humiliation just as well. So where does that put you? - Mass civilian killings by napalm / bombings (a astonishing +/-1730 civillians in October 20012) - Camps where people get tortured / humiliated, practically stripped of all rights If you'd add these things up I don't see how any of both is any better.[/QUOTE] your entire arguement is hilariously flawed, if you didnt realise war is a extremely messy thing the allies fire bombed cites, the axis bombed cities, etc etc. what you fail to realise is vietnam was a failed attempt to kill off a insurgency, something that the US had never dealt with before, we didnt march them off to DEATH CAMPS. the nazi regime started a world war, yanked people from their homes, stole their treasures, viciously executed thousands outright, sent millions on a choo choo ride to hell and left a continent in ruin and you want to fucking talk about how the CIA interrogated people a bit harshly? oh thats good. if anyone wants to be a tard lets put it like this so this guy kills a lot of people in a heinous way [quote][img]http://www.serialkillercalendar.com/Serial%20Killer%20Images/Dahmer/jeffrey-dahmer.jpg[/img][/quote] we lose him and find him 50+ years later so by most of the logic in this thread, we are gonna let him go because he is something something years old? hahahaha thats great

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;45154897]do you get the difference???[/QUOTE] The difference here is the reason the crimes were commited. The people commiting them, usually way down the line, have little to no choice. And the people that do commit the worst of human rights violations, are usually a small part of this group of people (i'd hope). I guess that was my point. I'm not saying not to trial these people, but like others said, maybe these "nazi hunters" should be focussing on current day nazi-esque parties. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SexualShark;45154928] we lose him and find him 50+ years later so by most of the logic in this thread, we are gonna let him go because he is something something years old? hahahaha thats great[/QUOTE] No, the point is if we think he saw the crime happen, and might have had a hand in keeping the whole ting operational, but didn't actually kill anyone themselves, as such, is it worth it to go after the guy 50 years later? Again, i'm not saying people shouldn't, I just think resources could better be directed towards another cause. But like someone said, money gets spent on the stupidest shit, so I guess that's not a valid argument. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;45154897] if a us soldier kills a civilian or pow out of spite, thats war crime and he should be held accountable and tried [/QUOTE] This, yes, but I don't see any actual proof that the man in question did anything. They just claim that he was part of the killing of so many prisoners, how? Did they find a little book which stated his name at a gatehouse? That he signed in to work for 5 years while the war was going on?

My entire point is, this guy was not Wehrmacht, this guy was SS. SS was given full sanction and control of the camps. Even if this guy was not directly involved in the slaughter, he was still a member of the Nazi Party. His hands are still not clean.

In the end, I think The point is sure, people should be trialed for these things. But not in the way it's beeing done now, as all former nazi's seem to be portrayed as demon scum. For all we know, this guy was a very nice guardsman, even smuggeling in a little food now and again for some kids. Sure, this is majorly optimistic, but we don't know. The fact that it feels like some people would rather see him hanged (well, thats the vibe I seem to get) gets people angry at the whole witch hunt going. The fact that that the anti-witch-hunt people don't like the way these things are beeing done, gets the other side again to think it's rediculous to let former war-criminals get away with their crimes. I think however that most people would like to see the middle-road, giving these people an honest trial, without portraying them as the devil before they even hit the courtroom, and proper punishments for people who DID commit crimes. I suppose it's a tricky subject. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SexualShark;45155045]My entire point is, this guy was not Wehrmacht, this guy was SS. SS was given full sanction and control of the camps. Even if this guy was not directly involved in the slaughter, he was still a member of the Nazi Party. His hands are still not clean.[/QUOTE] Only read Auswitch guard. Doing a (short) google search on the man gives one post which calls him "[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-man-89-held-nazi-death-camp-charges-24193981"]SS guard at Auschwitz[/URL]" So I wouldn't call him an SS'er just yet? [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] Or were all Auswitch guards SS'ers? If so, my bad. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] Altough that still wouldn't say a whole lot, if ALL guards were SS.

@WillerinV1.02 I've been alarmist through this. I'm half sorry about that. Selectively reading and reacting. That I apologize for. Moving forward... Here is another article that has different information on this. Particularly about the prison guard bit: [QUOTE]Breyer insists he was only in a field artillery unit of the Waffen SS and deserted weeks later after serving in the vicinity of Auschwitz, but not as a prison guard.[/QUOTE] (AFP via Yahoo news because I couldn't find it on afp's site)[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/us-arrests-alleged-auschwitz-guard-89-231848374.html"]US arrests alleged Auschwitz guard, 89[/URL] It also points out that the dude suffers from dementia. I have to agree that having this guy in a court that will be, I do not doubt, an emotionally charged environment... well that would be dumb. It would/will just be lawyers stroking each other which they are going to do with or without the guy who doesn't know where he is. Knowing about the dementia, that he deserted, that he spent time in a Russian POW camp, and that he did not serve in the SS voluntarily changes the way I see this. I still think they need to see their investigation through, but having possession of a dementia patient isn't going to help that investigation at all. Sort of off topic... I always seem to make an ass of myself when I post in this section. I want to stop but I read things and have opinions on them. Then I get all excited about the dumb ratings and post again. I have to remember SH is a trap I still haven't figured out how to avoid.

It's hard as shit to stay unbiased in the Sensationalist Headlines section anyway. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] Like week old winter shit.

he could be this he could be that what do you guys think a trial is for? the fact he was named and arrested gives us the implication that he MAY have done something, HENCE WHY WE HAVE A TRIAL. call it a witch hunt all you want, but they don't make arrests based on randomness. p.s: all the other posts are complete non-non-sequitur and going way off the rail the point is no matter how old or circumstances, the victims of these atrocities deserve [B]justice[/B], someone has to be held accountable, that's why they're still charging those that wasn't charged before because it [B]doesn't matter[/B] how old the crime is, the victims still deserve justice but that's why we have [B]trials[/B], we're not sticking him in the dungeon and executing him with a firing squad, they're having a trial to figure out the extent of his involvement and what he has done.

Good god this is like one of those Stephen King novels about the same thing. And that title...I saw what you did there

You could say that it's not worth capturing those people, but you also could argue that then it would be a kind of admission of defeat, and historical proof that criminals can get away scoff free. But personally I'd rather say that instead of hunting those criminals down, the time and resources would be better off invested in some cause that would actually stop people like these getting away in the future, instead of trying to fix an essentially already lost cause.

[QUOTE=G3rman;45153258]Germany is kind of like the Dark Angels in Warhammer 40k. They still care about all of the people that were involved in the Holocaust while the rest of the world has largely moved on. It's a sore point in their politics and national pride.[/QUOTE] I feel like they are overcompensating to get rid of whatever nazi imagery someone might associate to them nowadays. Somewhat understandable that they want people to completely forget that their country was once controlled by the most vile people in history, but this just wont achieve anything.

Even for the low level soldiers that did participate in some level more than just guarding, the fuck else were theysupposed to do? Refuse and get themselves executed, only to be replaced by yet another low level cog in the machine soldier?

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45154928]your entire arguement is hilariously flawed, if you didnt realise war is a extremely messy thing the allies fire bombed cites, the axis bombed cities, etc etc. what you fail to realise is vietnam was a failed attempt to kill off a insurgency, something that the US had never dealt with before, we didnt march them off to DEATH CAMPS. the nazi regime started a world war, yanked people from their homes, stole their treasures, viciously executed thousands outright, sent millions on a choo choo ride to hell and left a continent in ruin and you want to fucking talk about how the CIA interrogated people a bit harshly? oh thats good. if anyone wants to be a tard lets put it like this so this guy kills a lot of people in a heinous way we lose him and find him 50+ years later so by most of the logic in this thread, we are gonna let him go because he is something something years old? hahahaha thats great[/QUOTE] You are implying that this one guard personally killed all the people who died at that concentration camp. shhhhhh

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45154526]hahahaha are you trying to compare those? thats cute. you cant compare airstrikes to a industrial killing machine.[/QUOTE] You clearly have little to no common sense, so I'll spell this out for you: Someone orders you to do something, or they'll kill you and your entire family. This someone has the power to do so in the blink of an eye. They essentially have you captured and provide you with food, water, and safety. You expect them to sacrifice themselves strictly for moral satisfaction? His death would not have changed anything. It's incredible that you believe people should be punished for actions they had absolutely no control over. It's like saying everyone who's participated in every war ever deserves to be incarcerated because they were part of an army that shot an innocent. The US blew up half of Japan murdering hundreds upon thousands of innocents and I don't see you getting a justice boner over it, and that was a lot more recent than the genocide. This dude was a guard and did not actively participate in the death of anyone.