We've already been over this. You're defining it form the start as murder and then saying it needs a law to justify it. But it was the opposite way. It was sanctioned from the official legal channels, therefore they were lawful killings. So for it to be illegal, there would need to be a law disallowing those killings. I'm not sure if Germany was even a signatory to any kind of international law at that time. If they were, you could look at using that but if they weren't, that goes out the window.
Yes I am. Dictators will rarely break the law no matter how many evil acts they carry out, they can just change the law to legalize it. There are two issues regarding the holocaust; the legal side and the moral side. You can't conflate the two because the law doesn't work on moral principles.
They kept the Holocaust relatively secret for two reasons; They know if the Allies win, they will be looking to punish anyone involved with the camps. The more the Nazi high command distances itself from it, the better chance they have of escaping punishment if the Allies win. Also, even dictatorships do have to take public opinion into account. If the death camps were in public view then the public would have to accept the reality of what was happening and question whether they truly supported it. For Hitler, the whole thing was a possible PR disaster that could blow up in his face and maybe even topple him if public opinion was heavily against them. So best to keep it quiet and hidden from view.
So are you saying it was also legal to build these camps in Poland, and kidnap millions from other countries, and send them to the camps?
If you say that everything they did was legal, are you also saying we acted unlawfully by punishing them for their "lawful" actions?
If you say that everything they did was legal, are you also saying we acted unlawfully by punishing them for their "lawful" actions?
Under German law at the time the crimes were allegedly committed yes. Now this is where it gets incredibly complex. When the Allies took over Germany, we introduced retrospective legislation to allow us to punish the losing side for actions during the war. This, as far as I know, allows us to punish people who broke the laws we introduced, even if it wasn't a crime at the time they are alleged to have carried it out. You've got sort of a paradox here.
What do you think would have happened to him if he refused to follow the orders? You think they would have patted him on the back and said ''Fair enough young man, off you go and have a nice life''
He volunteered for the SS and went through quite a stringent selection process to get in...so he bought into the genocide thing, that's what the SS were for.
It wont make the slightest bit of difference to Holocaust denial,the deniers don't accept facts or any logical arguments.
If anything it will make their convictions stronger as they will probably portray it as the State bullying an old man into a false admission of guilt.
This old man though has been openly talking about the atrocities committed at Auschwitz for decades. He said he went public after becoming aware of Holocaust denial in the mid-80s and it's probably the reason why he seems very talkative in this trial.
The difference being of course that an interview here and there doesn't get nearly as much worldwide publicity as this trial.
For hardened neo-nazis this of course won't make any difference, but it's not them I'm thinking of.
It wont make the slightest bit of difference to Holocaust denial,the deniers don't accept facts or any logical arguments.
If anything it will make their convictions stronger as they will probably portray it as the State bullying an old man into a false admission of guilt.
It's not defined though, they are using him to try and test the law, and as I have said, he is being burdened with the entire holocaust by virtue of simply being there.
Well, yes. The reason for that is that Demjanjuk's conviction was invalid since he appealed and died before his appeal could be tried. That means he died without a conviction or criminal record.
Legally that means there isn't actually a precedent.
Groening is not being burdened with the entire Holocaust. He is not even accused of murder, he is accused of being an accessory to murder. Even if convicted he won't go down in history as "the man responisble for the Holocaust".
He was a small fish and that's basically the whole point of the trial. To show that anyone who participates in genocide (even low level participants are participants) is at the very least morally guilty. Whether he is legally guilty this trial will show.
It wont make the slightest bit of difference to Holocaust denial,the deniers don't accept facts or any logical arguments.
If anything it will make their convictions stronger as they will probably portray it as the State bullying an old man into a false admission of guilt.
I haven't seen any holocaust deniers on this thread.
Just because someone has the nerve to disagree with your conclusions relating to this matter, does not automatically equate them to being a "holocaust denier", nor does it make their arguments any less logical than yours.You are making a mighty unfair leap there.
Really bad form to make such damning personal and wholly unsubstantiated judgements on fellow posters, IMO.
It amazes me the cards that are pulled out on these DS threads.
It's ridiculous. Some people seem so utterly convinced that only their argument can hold any merit, that they rush to moralistic judgements on people who disagree with them, and whom they know nothing about.
I haven't seen any holocaust deniers on this thread.
Just because someone has the nerve to disagree with your conclusions relating to this matter, does not automatically equate them to being a "holocaust denier", nor does it make their arguments any less logical than yours.You are making a mighty unfair leap there.
Really bad form to make such damning personal and wholly unsubstantiated judgements on fellow posters, IMO.
Wind it in blueblade I was referring to this part of the post.....does post #336 only apply to people you do not agree with then?
Yes completely legal. Governments rarely ever truly "break the law"
Under German law at the time the crimes were allegedly committed yes. Now this is where it gets incredibly complex. When the Allies took over Germany, we introduced retrospective legislation to allow us to punish the losing side for actions during the war. This, as far as I know, allows us to punish people who broke the laws we introduced, even if it wasn't a crime at the time they are alleged to have carried it out. You've got sort of a paradox here.
So it was lawful for them to invade other countries, and seize millions of people, and send them to death camps?
Wind it in blueblade I was referring to this part of the post.
Then maybe you should have snipped the bit relating to the holocaust deniers, because it looked to me as though you were implying people on here were also holocaust deniers.
As for winding it in, I think that particular phrase would be better directed at you, Taglet, not the person calling you out on a bad post. But thank you for clarifying the situation.
Then maybe you should have snipped the bit relating to the holocaust deniers, because it looked to me as though you were implying people on here were also holocaust deniers.
As for winding it in, I think that particular phrase would be better directed at you, not on the person calling you out on a bad post. But thank you for clarifying the situation.
Maybe you should have clarified instead of making snap moral judgments about other posters who you disagree with and who you know nothing about. Glass houses and all that.
Well, yes. The reason for that is that Demjanjuk's conviction was invalid since he appealed and died before his appeal could be tried. That means he died without a conviction or criminal record.
Legally that means there isn't actually a precedent.
Groening is not being burdened with the entire Holocaust. He is not even accused of murder, he is accused of being an accessory to murder. Even if convicted he won't go down in history as "the man responisble for the Holocaust".
He was a small fish and that's basically the whole point of the trial. To show that anyone who participates in genocide (even low level participants are participants) is at the very least morally guilty. Whether he is legally guilty this trial will show.
Which brings us back around to the argument of just how culpable is somebody just because they were there?
All the Nazis facilitated that genocide. Every last one of them bears equal guilt if the criteria for being an accessory to genocide is merely to be a part of the regime that undertook it. Auschwitz and the process of getting the victims to it was a far larger logistical operation than just the guys who were stationed there. It was an evil that permeated every echelon of Nazi ideology, and they're thus all guilty.
Or, it can be acknowledged thus and simply consigned to a place in history as mankind's darkest hour, as prosecuting small fish isn't going to rid the stain.
Yes completely legal. Governments rarely ever truly "break the law"
Under German law at the time the crimes were allegedly committed yes. Now this is where it gets incredibly complex. When the Allies took over Germany, we introduced retrospective legislation to allow us to punish the losing side for actions during the war. This, as far as I know, allows us to punish people who broke the laws we introduced, even if it wasn't a crime at the time they are alleged to have carried it out. You've got sort of a paradox here.
The Nazi government made it legal via various laws to discriminate against Jews , it was also legal to deport or as they said "evacuate" Jews , they sought the co-operation of other people at the Wannsee Conference in 1942 to go ahead with the extermination of Jews . Goring gave authority to Heydrich to come up with the plan for said extermination in all German controlled areas. However after transportation of Jews the actual murder was not defined in law it was an internal "matter" to be dealt with by the SS. So whilst it was policy it was not an actual law as defined by any of the other anti Jewish laws.
Maybe you should have clarified instead of making snap moral judgments about other posters who you disagree with and who you know nothing about. Glass houses and all that.
No - it was a bad post on your part, you were rightly called on it, but instead of having the grace to apologise for frankly very offensive implications, you try and turn it round on the person who has called you.
Which brings us back around to the argument of just how culpable is somebody just because they were there?
All the Nazis facilitated that genocide. Every last one of them bears equal guilt if the criteria for being an accessory to genocide is merely to be a part of the regime that undertook it. Auschwitz and the process of getting the victims to it was a far larger logistical operation than just the guys who were stationed there. It was an evil that permeated every echelon of Nazi ideology, and they're thus all guilty.
Or, it can be acknowledged thus and simply consigned to a place in history as mankind's darkest hour, as prosecuting small fish isn't going to rid the stain.
Yes, that is the point. That is the German collective guilt.
Which brings us back around to the argument of just how culpable is somebody just because they were there?
All the Nazis facilitated that genocide. Every last one of them bears equal guilt if the criteria for being an accessory to genocide is merely to be a part of the regime that undertook it. Auschwitz and the process of getting the victims to it was a far larger logistical operation than just the guys who were stationed there. It was an evil that permeated every echelon of Nazi ideology, and they're thus all guilty.
Or, it can be acknowledged thus and simply consigned to a place in history as mankind's darkest hour, as prosecuting small fish isn't going to rid the stain.
The point is, just how far down the system do you go? In 1945, pretty much the entire German nation was implicated in atrocities, depending on which way you look at it. Immediately after the war, you couldn't have prosecuted every last one of them for war crimes. But now in 2015, when there are just a very few left alive, it seems fair game to pursue those remaining, even though they occupied minor roles.
No - it was a bad post on your part, you were rightly called on it, but instead of having the grace to apologise for frankly very offensive implications, you try and turn it round on the person who has called you.
I have clarified, you even thanked me for doing so....what more do you want? Why should I apologise?
Which brings us back around to the argument of just how culpable is somebody just because they were there?
All the Nazis facilitated that genocide. Every last one of them bears equal guilt if the criteria for being an accessory to genocide is merely to be a part of the regime that undertook it. Auschwitz and the process of getting the victims to it was a far larger logistical operation than just the guys who were stationed there. It was an evil that permeated every echelon of Nazi ideology, and they're thus all guilty.
Or, it can be acknowledged thus and simply consigned to a place in history as mankind's darkest hour, as prosecuting small fish isn't going to rid the stain.
This is not about him simply being a Nazi. This is about him being a Nazi and then taking it further by joining the SS division whose sole responsibility was carrying out the extermination of the Jews. So yes, whilst he may have been a small fish as far as the SS Totenkopf (deaths head) were concerned, he was still an active part of the holocaust machine far more than a Nazi party member in Berlin doing the typing.
For the record, there have been hearings and witness statements and a case is being built against the SNCF who were responsible for the trains.
So it was lawful for them to invade other countries, and seize millions of people, and send them to death camps?
Yes it was, at least according to their laws. It wasn't legal according to ours. When that dispute happens and can't be resolved and neither party is willing to stand down, you get a war.
The Nazi government made it legal via various laws to discriminate against Jews , it was also legal to deport or as they said "evacuate" Jews , they sought the co-operation of other people at the Wannsee Conference in 1942 to go ahead with the extermination of Jews . Goring gave authority to Heydrich to come up with the plan for said extermination in all German controlled areas. However after transportation of Jews the actual murder was not defined in law it was an internal "matter" to be dealt with by the SS. So whilst it was policy it was not an actual law as defined by any of the other anti Jewish laws.
Many of the things government do are policy yet not actually defined in any law. If it helps clear up a misunderstanding I think people are having, I'm not attempting to defend what happened in any way, or say that this man shouldn't be prosecuted. I'm simply being devils advocate and looking at it from a purely legal point. What law can he be charged with breaking, if his actions did not violate any Nazi law at the time?
Comments
So are you saying it was also legal to build these camps in Poland, and kidnap millions from other countries, and send them to the camps?
If you say that everything they did was legal, are you also saying we acted unlawfully by punishing them for their "lawful" actions?
Yes completely legal. Governments rarely ever truly "break the law"
Under German law at the time the crimes were allegedly committed yes. Now this is where it gets incredibly complex. When the Allies took over Germany, we introduced retrospective legislation to allow us to punish the losing side for actions during the war. This, as far as I know, allows us to punish people who broke the laws we introduced, even if it wasn't a crime at the time they are alleged to have carried it out. You've got sort of a paradox here.
He volunteered for the SS and went through quite a stringent selection process to get in...so he bought into the genocide thing, that's what the SS were for.
This old man though has been openly talking about the atrocities committed at Auschwitz for decades. He said he went public after becoming aware of Holocaust denial in the mid-80s and it's probably the reason why he seems very talkative in this trial.
The difference being of course that an interview here and there doesn't get nearly as much worldwide publicity as this trial.
For hardened neo-nazis this of course won't make any difference, but it's not them I'm thinking of.
Very true if this thread is anything to go by.
Well, yes. The reason for that is that Demjanjuk's conviction was invalid since he appealed and died before his appeal could be tried. That means he died without a conviction or criminal record.
Legally that means there isn't actually a precedent.
Groening is not being burdened with the entire Holocaust. He is not even accused of murder, he is accused of being an accessory to murder. Even if convicted he won't go down in history as "the man responisble for the Holocaust".
He was a small fish and that's basically the whole point of the trial. To show that anyone who participates in genocide (even low level participants are participants) is at the very least morally guilty. Whether he is legally guilty this trial will show.
Are there holocaust deniers in this thread?
These two will never face justice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3051101/The-female-SS-guards-revelled-Hitler-s-Holocaust-never-face-justice.html
I haven't seen any holocaust deniers on this thread.
Just because someone has the nerve to disagree with your conclusions relating to this matter, does not automatically equate them to being a "holocaust denier", nor does it make their arguments any less logical than yours.You are making a mighty unfair leap there.
Really bad form to make such damning personal and wholly unsubstantiated judgements on fellow posters, IMO.
It's ridiculous. Some people seem so utterly convinced that only their argument can hold any merit, that they rush to moralistic judgements on people who disagree with them, and whom they know nothing about.
Wind it in blueblade I was referring to this part of the post.....does post #336 only apply to people you do not agree with then?
So it was lawful for them to invade other countries, and seize millions of people, and send them to death camps?
I'm not sure why we went to war with them now.
Then maybe you should have snipped the bit relating to the holocaust deniers, because it looked to me as though you were implying people on here were also holocaust deniers.
As for winding it in, I think that particular phrase would be better directed at you, Taglet, not the person calling you out on a bad post. But thank you for clarifying the situation.
Maybe you should have clarified instead of making snap moral judgments about other posters who you disagree with and who you know nothing about. Glass houses and all that.
Which brings us back around to the argument of just how culpable is somebody just because they were there?
All the Nazis facilitated that genocide. Every last one of them bears equal guilt if the criteria for being an accessory to genocide is merely to be a part of the regime that undertook it. Auschwitz and the process of getting the victims to it was a far larger logistical operation than just the guys who were stationed there. It was an evil that permeated every echelon of Nazi ideology, and they're thus all guilty.
Or, it can be acknowledged thus and simply consigned to a place in history as mankind's darkest hour, as prosecuting small fish isn't going to rid the stain.
The Nazi government made it legal via various laws to discriminate against Jews , it was also legal to deport or as they said "evacuate" Jews , they sought the co-operation of other people at the Wannsee Conference in 1942 to go ahead with the extermination of Jews . Goring gave authority to Heydrich to come up with the plan for said extermination in all German controlled areas. However after transportation of Jews the actual murder was not defined in law it was an internal "matter" to be dealt with by the SS. So whilst it was policy it was not an actual law as defined by any of the other anti Jewish laws.
No - it was a bad post on your part, you were rightly called on it, but instead of having the grace to apologise for frankly very offensive implications, you try and turn it round on the person who has called you.
Yes, that is the point. That is the German collective guilt.
The point is, just how far down the system do you go? In 1945, pretty much the entire German nation was implicated in atrocities, depending on which way you look at it. Immediately after the war, you couldn't have prosecuted every last one of them for war crimes. But now in 2015, when there are just a very few left alive, it seems fair game to pursue those remaining, even though they occupied minor roles.
I'm not sure that's correct, personally.
I have clarified, you even thanked me for doing so....what more do you want? Why should I apologise?
For the sake of Mike, just leave it will you.
Oh I can do that happily....I never wanted to be part of it in the first place.
This is not about him simply being a Nazi. This is about him being a Nazi and then taking it further by joining the SS division whose sole responsibility was carrying out the extermination of the Jews. So yes, whilst he may have been a small fish as far as the SS Totenkopf (deaths head) were concerned, he was still an active part of the holocaust machine far more than a Nazi party member in Berlin doing the typing.
For the record, there have been hearings and witness statements and a case is being built against the SNCF who were responsible for the trains.
http://holocaustrailvictims.org
Yes it was, at least according to their laws. It wasn't legal according to ours. When that dispute happens and can't be resolved and neither party is willing to stand down, you get a war.
We went to war because the Nazis had to be stopped. It seems relatively simple to me.
Many of the things government do are policy yet not actually defined in any law. If it helps clear up a misunderstanding I think people are having, I'm not attempting to defend what happened in any way, or say that this man shouldn't be prosecuted. I'm simply being devils advocate and looking at it from a purely legal point. What law can he be charged with breaking, if his actions did not violate any Nazi law at the time?