The trial of 93 year old Oskar Groening, former Nazi SS and Auschwitz guard
idlewilde
Posts: 8,698 Forum Member
✭
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3048472/Still-defiant-bookkeeper-Auschwitz-sits-arms-folded-court-70-Holocaust-survivors-face-300-000-accessory-murder-charges.html
Ninety three year old Groening has gone on trial in Germany accused of being an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people. He was a 21 year old soldier at the time, and his duty was to collect and appropriate the valuables and personal belongings of the arriving detainees at Auschwitz. He has since been haunted by events and has claimed moral guilt for his contribution to the atrocities of the Nazis in WWII, but also claims never to have personally harmed or killed anybody.
Is there anything really to be gained from a criminal trial of this man?
Ninety three year old Groening has gone on trial in Germany accused of being an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people. He was a 21 year old soldier at the time, and his duty was to collect and appropriate the valuables and personal belongings of the arriving detainees at Auschwitz. He has since been haunted by events and has claimed moral guilt for his contribution to the atrocities of the Nazis in WWII, but also claims never to have personally harmed or killed anybody.
Is there anything really to be gained from a criminal trial of this man?
0
Comments
Your link describes him as unrepentant in the title....its somewhat provocative to argue that he should not face a trial. Its not just about guilt, its about the truth so I think it should go ahead.
He is unrepentant about his perceived level of complicity I expect. He has been believed by survivors about his actual role and his claims of not personally carrying out any torture or killing of the prisoners there. The trial seems to want to criminalise him purely for being there, simply for being a Nazi, part of the regime.
At his advanced age and the passage of time since, there can be no meaningful punishment that he doesn't already live with.
Even if he goes to prison, what'll happen then? I doubt anyone would want to inflict any type of revenge on him considering his age etc.
Of course it'd be a different story if he was 63 instead of 93....
I doubt he cared about the age and health of his victims.
Why has it taken this long for this to happen? Why could he not have faced charges years ago? It's not like it's only just come to light that he was there and involved?
I guess it depends on the crime. Something tells me that a serial sex abuser who reached his 90s before being brought to heel would still face an angry public; regardless of whether he showed remorse or not. Wasn't Stuart Hall 84 when locked up last year?
I guess justice for the families of victims etc may extend beyond seeing the old man punished; perhaps an official recognition of his involvement (if applicable) would still help those affected by the horrors of the past. And if he was involved in murder to a significant level (beyond being there), it is only right that the history books remember him as a war criminal, instead of just a 'sad old man'.
He admits being there as a 21 year old guard, and an administrative role at that. What is it that you believe he admits "he did", and what punishment is appropriate?
It's not just his age for me, but that adds to it. If you believe everything he says, he seems to have lived with and been affected by the guilt ever since, and I think that will have been more of a punishment than any prison sentence would bring now.
I'm not sure there is a comparison between this and someone like Stuart Hall. This man has always accepted his guilt for the part he played, whereas people like Stuart Hall were happy to go about life as if they hadn't committed the crimes they did.
And as I said within my first post, there is more to justice for any potential wrongdoing than punishing the offender.
Trials dont begin with a predetermined outcome otherwise there would be no point in having them. Its about the truth which is what I said....if convicted then that is the right outcome.
It would be interesting to see exactly what would happen if he just turned round in court and answered every question with "I don't remember, it was so long ago"
What truth? He has been accused of being an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people. He hasn't been named as the murderer of specific prisoners there. Even some of the survivors have said they don't ever recall even seeing him.
His crime was simply of being there as part of the Nazi machine, which he has already admitted that he was. I'm not sure what "truth" is going to come out of this trial that isn't already public knowledge. They might as well put every single German veteran still alive on trial if the crime is simply one of being part of the Nazi regime.
Well I'm guessing that there is a petitioners side of the story and a defendants side and they hear all the evidence and make a judgement to determine what happened....the truth. Its important for the survivors which was clear in your link
'The Holocaust was made of small men like him, little cogs in the machine. It wasn't just big fish, it was people like Oskar Groening. It doesn't matter what his punishment is, but the verdict. The Holocaust deniers can always say a little old Jewish woman told lies. But they will not be able to deny the words of a single SS man who admits he was there.'
Hmm... True.
In my personal opinion he should still be tried. It doesn't matter how old you are now, you should still be held accountable for your actions. What happened was despicable (which I do not think for a minute anyone is disputing) and if we stop trying to find those responsible because they are old now then we are not doing the victims justice.
He was part of what was an unbelievable event, and you cant play down anyones role in what took place.
His sentence should reflect his age, and admissions though, and prison now doesn't seem worthwhile.
This trial is almost kangaroo in nature, and comes across as nothing more than a kind of guilt-relieving exercise for the German state. His crime is to be accused of being "an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people", that means that no matter what he says or does, he cannot escape that fact purely by virtue of him being a Nazi soldier on guard at Auschwitz. His personal involvement there is irrelevant, the fact that he was simply posted there means the verdict to my mind is a foregone conclusion.
This is an attempt to purge a 75 year old national tragedy by laying the burden on the people who had least influence over it.
....and how do you know this?
How do I know what?