You seem to have decided that it will be a kangaroo court and no matter what he says or does his guilt will be found as a foregone conclusion. I'm assuming you have a whole heap of evidence to prove that will be the outcome and why.
I've seen the BBC documentary Oskar Groening appeared in, in fact i still have it on my pvr along with many other Holocaust documentaries.
Of course he should be brought to trial. He has testified to accepting a moral share of blame for the atrocities and if convicted i don't give a damn if his final days are spent in a cell.
He has been free to enjoy his life post 1945. Why should his age have any relevance?
Interestingly Lord Janner, a life long active campaigner to bring justice for Holocaust victims has been highly critical of the legal system which allowed Szymon Serafinowicz an 86 year old man to escape questioning in 1997 over Nazi atrocities due to his dementia.
While what he did was wrong, we're charging a man who wasn't committing a crime at the time he did this. If the Nazis had won, retrospectively made it a crime to fight them, and prosecuted hundreds of thousands of our troops for their crimes, would anyone truly see that as justice?
One could argue that without all the little cogs in the machine, there would be no machine - even if it was held together by fear.
Another reason why the trial should indeed go ahead - establish as much as we can after all this time who did what.
And what if the "truth" after this trial, such as will be reached after 70 years, is that he was indeed just a 21 year old guard whose duty it was to collect and log belongings, having no further involvement than that, as he has always maintained?
Does that mean he was no longer a little cog in the big machine? Is he no longer an "accessory"?
In London only a couple of weeks ago there was a meeting of influential Holocaust Deniers. As time moves on there are fewer and fewer survivors and perpetrators able to testify.
I don't think that due to his age and his 'repentance' there should be a hard punishment but a trial which serves to remind us all of the horrors of the death camps isn't a bad thing IMO.
One could argue that without all the little cogs in the machine, there would be no machine - even if it was held together by fear.
Another reason why the trial should indeed go ahead - establish as much as we can after all this time who did what.
That seems like a very simplistic point of view to me. Of course the "machine" would fail without all the little cogs - but that relies on every single cog (or the vast majority of them) to refuse to work.
What if you were one of those cogs? Would you have chosen not to perform an administrative role knowing that your choice would no doubt result in instant death?
I'm not condoning the actions of this man - just pointing out that it's easy to pass judgement from afar, and that people like this couldn't just down tools and quit without fatal consequences.
I dare say I'd do a lot of unsavory things if the only alternative was death.
And what if the "truth" after this trial, such as will be reached after 70 years, is that he was indeed just a 21 year old guard whose duty it was to collect and log belongings, having no further involvement than that, as he has always maintained?
Does that mean he was no longer a little cog in the big machine? Is he no longer an "accessory"?
That seems like a very simplistic point of view to me. Of course the "machine" would fail without all the little cogs - but that relies on every single cog (or the vast majority of them) to refuse to work.
What if you were one of those cogs? Would you have chosen not to perform an administrative role knowing that your choice would no doubt result in instant death?
I'm not condoning the actions of this man - just pointing out that it's easy to pass judgement from afar, and that people like this couldn't just down tools and quit without fatal consequences.
I dare say I'd do a lot of unsavory things if the only alternative was death.
BIB - if that conclusion is reached in court, then quite simply, he will be vindicated of any wrongdoing and everyone far and wide will accept his innocence. As I alluded to in the last post, I accept that there was an element of fear for staff serving in the name of the regime.
But the trial needs to be held to established these facts - as much as can be established of course, given the elapsed time.
I've seen the BBC documentary Oskar Groening appeared in, in fact i still have it on my pvr along with many other Holocaust documentaries.
Of course he should be brought to trial. He has testified to accepting a moral share of blame for the atrocities and if convicted i don't give a damn if his final days are spent in a cell.
He has been free to enjoy his life post 1945. Why should his age have any relevance?
Interestingly Lord Janner, a life long active campaigner to bring justice for Holocaust victims has been highly critical of the legal system which allowed Szymon Serafinowicz an 86 year old man to escape questioning in 1997 over Nazi atrocities due to his dementia.
I hate to think of someone not being called to account for their actions so it sticks in my throat too. The tragedy is that it took so long for it to come to trial.
Oh the irony.
Completely agree....however depending on the severity of the dementia it can be impossible to question someone with dementia. My mum would not remember having been asked a question let alone what the question was. Even with mild dementia you cannot rely on the answers being accurate.
You seem to have decided that it will be a kangaroo court and no matter what he says or does his guilt will be found as a foregone conclusion. I'm assuming you have a whole heap of evidence to prove that will be the outcome and why.
After admitting his role as a guard stationed there, what do you think would acquit him from the charge of being "accessory to the murder of 300,000 people" ?
Do you think that even if it is established that he was a really nice chap, who spoke nicely to the arriving detainees, never lifted a hand to them all his days, and left without ever getting involved in the endless atrocities, he will be then NOT be an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people, as he was STILL this small cog in the big machine?
BIB - if that conclusion is reached in court, then quite simply, he will be vindicated of any wrongdoing and everyone far and wide will accept his innocence.
But he isn't innocent of the charges laid before him, because no matter what this trial hopes to uncover, simply by being there he was by definition "an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people"
His crime seems to simply have been a Nazi extermination camp guard. So what are they "trying" in this trial?
While what he did was wrong, we're charging a man who wasn't committing a crime at the time he did this. If the Nazis had won, retrospectively made it a crime to fight them, and prosecuted hundreds of thousands of our troops for their crimes, would anyone truly see that as justice?
This chap isn't on trial for fighting British soldiers, he is on trial for murdering civillians, which is still a crime regardless of if you are at war or not.
After admitting his role as a guard stationed there, what do you think would acquit him from the charge of being "accessory to the murder of 300,000 people" ?
Do you think that even if it is established that he was a really nice chap, who spoke nicely to the arriving detainees, never lifted a hand to them all his days, and left without ever getting involved in the endless atrocities, he will be then NOT be an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people, as he was STILL this small cog in the big machine?
What is the trial hoping to discover?
He was an accessory. He joined the SS, and he knew what they were doing. He played his role in what happened.
The trial will make sure this issue is in the spotlight again, and he deserves being tried for being part of it.
But he isn't innocent of the charges laid before him, because no matter what this trial hopes to uncover, simply by being there he was by definition "an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people"
His crime seems to simply have been a Nazi extermination camp guard. So what are they "trying" in this trial?
But if it is possible to establish that his presence at the camp was something which couldn't be avoided, under duress or otherwise - then he can indeed fight the 'accessory to murder' charge.
If someone was present during a mass murder, questions are going to be asked.
While what he did was wrong, we're charging a man who wasn't committing a crime at the time he did this. If the Nazis had won, retrospectively made it a crime to fight them, and prosecuted hundreds of thousands of our troops for their crimes, would anyone truly see that as justice?
What we were doing bore no comparison to what the Nazis were doing.
Thankfully we did beat them, otherwise the figure of 6 million murdered would have been even higher.
After admitting his role as a guard stationed there, what do you think would acquit him from the charge of being "accessory to the murder of 300,000 people" ?
Do you think that even if it is established that he was a really nice chap, who spoke nicely to the arriving detainees, never lifted a hand to them all his days, and left without ever getting involved in the endless atrocities, he will be then NOT be an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people, as he was STILL this small cog in the big machine?
What is the trial hoping to discover?
The facts.....I find it interesting that you have invented a caricature of a really nice chap welcoming the detainees with a cheery smile and then suggest the trial will be skewed against him.
The facts.....I find it interesting that you have invented a caricature of a really nice chap welcoming the detainees with a cheery smile and then suggest the trial will be skewed against him.
Yeah, and maybe all those Brits who have gone and joined up with ISIS are only there to make the tea and keep any hostages entertained and comfortable.
Nothing to gain for locking him up. He'll be dead soon enough.
There is something to be gained. The rather important point that people who take part in mass murder and genicide can never relax because enough time has passed and it should be forgotten, forgiven, swept under the carpet etc.
Thats a rather pertinent point since we currently have war atrocities and mass murder being perpetrated in several countries.
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.'
But he has already told what he knows and defied deniers. He appeared in the documentary series, 'The Nazis And The Final Solution', relating how the Nazis made fortunes out of the dead. I remember him detailing all the currencies, of Europe and
beyond, which he sorted for Berlin. Somehow that conveyed the scope of the Holocaust
more poignantly than just statistics, and in such a way that Holocaust deniers cannot argue against him.
I believe he was just a clerk in an office, that he is haunted by it and that the testimony he has already given is valuable. What is to be gained by trying him at his age and after all these years, especially when he could have kept quiet about his time there but chose not to, is beyond me. This isn't an Eichman or a Himmler.
But he has already told what he knows and defied deniers. He appeared in the documentary series, 'The Nazis And The Final Solution', relating how the Nazis made fortunes out of the dead. I remember him detailing all the currencies, of Europe and
beyond, which he sorted for Berlin. Somehow that conveyed the scope of the Holocaust
more poignantly than just statistics, and in such a way that Holocaust deniers cannot argue against him.
I believe he was just a clerk in an office, that he is haunted by it and that the testimony he has already given is valuable. What is to be gained by trying him at his age and after all these years, especially when he could have kept quiet about his time there but chose not to, is beyond me. This isn't an Eichman or a Himmler.
This trial gives him just as much opportunity to clear his name as it does to convict him.
The facts.....I find it interesting that you have invented a caricature of a really nice chap welcoming the detainees with a cheery smile and then suggest the trial will be skewed against him.
No, no, no, hang on...
The facts are that he was a guard there, by his own admission. Therefore my point was that he cannot escape that fact, and I want to know what other facts there are to be uncovered that would cause a jury to conclude he was not therefore an "accessory to the murder of 300,000 people"
What argument could he put forward to mitigate that inconvient fact?
He was an "accessory to the murder of 300,000 people" purely by virtue of being a Nazi guard if the requirement for guilt is to be a small cog in a large machine. But that goes for every single man and woman who served in the German army, as their involvement at Auschwitz may be equally negligible.
He is being tried "for being there" that is all, and as he has long admitted being a guard there, why is this trial coming about now, and what facts or truths are hoping to be uncovered?
This chap isn't on trial for fighting British soldiers, he is on trial for murdering civillians, which is still a crime regardless of if you are at war or not.
Not in every country. And it certainly wasn't in Germany, where all the actions at these camps had full legal approval from the highest possible authority in the land. Now of course what happened was wrong, but honestly I'm not happy about retrospective laws being applied. One of the principles we have in our justice system is that it doesn't matter if something is illegal now, if it was legal when you did it you won't be charged. This is a rather special case, it's a high profile one and a lot of people were killed in those camps so I can understand why people feel that it is necessary to apply a retrospective law and prosecute this man even though he wasn't doing anything illegal at the time.
By the way don't talk about "war crimes" because that entire concept is ridiculous. When you decide to go to war you have already broken one of the biggest universally accepted "rules"; You are killing people to get what you want. Why bother drawing up a set of rules to fight to, because if you've already decided it's acceptable to break one, you WILL inevitably break every other one when you get desperate enough. Also different situations would require different interpretations of what a crime is. You could argue that armies with the capability to precision strike targets commit a crime whenever they strike a civilian, but that rule would be unworkable for armies that can't hit with precision. Some less advanced armies in the world don't have smartbombs and need to fire at or bomb "over there in that general area" near where the enemy was last spotted. That invariably causes more civilian casualties than the more advanced army, but they don't have a choice because they are limited by their technology.
But he has already told what he knows and defied deniers. He appeared in the documentary series, 'The Nazis And The Final Solution', relating how the Nazis made fortunes out of the dead. I remember him detailing all the currencies, of Europe and
beyond, which he sorted for Berlin. Somehow that conveyed the scope of the Holocaust
more poignantly than just statistics, and in such a way that Holocaust deniers cannot argue against him.
I believe he was just a clerk in an office, that he is haunted by it and that the testimony he has already given is valuable. What is to be gained by trying him at his age and after all these years, especially when he could have kept quiet about his time there but chose not to, is beyond me. This isn't an Eichman or a Himmler.
If the point is to establish the facts (rather than his narrated version of events).....what would be lost by his facing a trial?
Comments
Another reason why the trial should indeed go ahead - establish as much as we can after all this time who did what.
You seem to have decided that it will be a kangaroo court and no matter what he says or does his guilt will be found as a foregone conclusion. I'm assuming you have a whole heap of evidence to prove that will be the outcome and why.
Of course he should be brought to trial. He has testified to accepting a moral share of blame for the atrocities and if convicted i don't give a damn if his final days are spent in a cell.
He has been free to enjoy his life post 1945. Why should his age have any relevance?
Interestingly Lord Janner, a life long active campaigner to bring justice for Holocaust victims has been highly critical of the legal system which allowed Szymon Serafinowicz an 86 year old man to escape questioning in 1997 over Nazi atrocities due to his dementia.
Oh the irony.
And what if the "truth" after this trial, such as will be reached after 70 years, is that he was indeed just a 21 year old guard whose duty it was to collect and log belongings, having no further involvement than that, as he has always maintained?
Does that mean he was no longer a little cog in the big machine? Is he no longer an "accessory"?
It's a sham.
I don't think that due to his age and his 'repentance' there should be a hard punishment but a trial which serves to remind us all of the horrors of the death camps isn't a bad thing IMO.
Janner does genuinely have dementia unlike Tory chums Ernest Saunders and Augusto Pinochet.
That seems like a very simplistic point of view to me. Of course the "machine" would fail without all the little cogs - but that relies on every single cog (or the vast majority of them) to refuse to work.
What if you were one of those cogs? Would you have chosen not to perform an administrative role knowing that your choice would no doubt result in instant death?
I'm not condoning the actions of this man - just pointing out that it's easy to pass judgement from afar, and that people like this couldn't just down tools and quit without fatal consequences.
I dare say I'd do a lot of unsavory things if the only alternative was death.
BIB - if that conclusion is reached in court, then quite simply, he will be vindicated of any wrongdoing and everyone far and wide will accept his innocence. As I alluded to in the last post, I accept that there was an element of fear for staff serving in the name of the regime.
But the trial needs to be held to established these facts - as much as can be established of course, given the elapsed time.
Completely agree....however depending on the severity of the dementia it can be impossible to question someone with dementia. My mum would not remember having been asked a question let alone what the question was. Even with mild dementia you cannot rely on the answers being accurate.
After admitting his role as a guard stationed there, what do you think would acquit him from the charge of being "accessory to the murder of 300,000 people" ?
Do you think that even if it is established that he was a really nice chap, who spoke nicely to the arriving detainees, never lifted a hand to them all his days, and left without ever getting involved in the endless atrocities, he will be then NOT be an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people, as he was STILL this small cog in the big machine?
What is the trial hoping to discover?
But he isn't innocent of the charges laid before him, because no matter what this trial hopes to uncover, simply by being there he was by definition "an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people"
His crime seems to simply have been a Nazi extermination camp guard. So what are they "trying" in this trial?
This chap isn't on trial for fighting British soldiers, he is on trial for murdering civillians, which is still a crime regardless of if you are at war or not.
He was an accessory. He joined the SS, and he knew what they were doing. He played his role in what happened.
The trial will make sure this issue is in the spotlight again, and he deserves being tried for being part of it.
Sentencing should reflect his age though.
If someone was present during a mass murder, questions are going to be asked.
What we were doing bore no comparison to what the Nazis were doing.
Thankfully we did beat them, otherwise the figure of 6 million murdered would have been even higher.
The facts.....I find it interesting that you have invented a caricature of a really nice chap welcoming the detainees with a cheery smile and then suggest the trial will be skewed against him.
Yeah, and maybe all those Brits who have gone and joined up with ISIS are only there to make the tea and keep any hostages entertained and comfortable.
Thats a rather pertinent point since we currently have war atrocities and mass murder being perpetrated in several countries.
But he has already told what he knows and defied deniers. He appeared in the documentary series, 'The Nazis And The Final Solution', relating how the Nazis made fortunes out of the dead. I remember him detailing all the currencies, of Europe and
beyond, which he sorted for Berlin. Somehow that conveyed the scope of the Holocaust
more poignantly than just statistics, and in such a way that Holocaust deniers cannot argue against him.
I believe he was just a clerk in an office, that he is haunted by it and that the testimony he has already given is valuable. What is to be gained by trying him at his age and after all these years, especially when he could have kept quiet about his time there but chose not to, is beyond me. This isn't an Eichman or a Himmler.
This trial gives him just as much opportunity to clear his name as it does to convict him.
No, no, no, hang on...
The facts are that he was a guard there, by his own admission. Therefore my point was that he cannot escape that fact, and I want to know what other facts there are to be uncovered that would cause a jury to conclude he was not therefore an "accessory to the murder of 300,000 people"
What argument could he put forward to mitigate that inconvient fact?
He was an "accessory to the murder of 300,000 people" purely by virtue of being a Nazi guard if the requirement for guilt is to be a small cog in a large machine. But that goes for every single man and woman who served in the German army, as their involvement at Auschwitz may be equally negligible.
He is being tried "for being there" that is all, and as he has long admitted being a guard there, why is this trial coming about now, and what facts or truths are hoping to be uncovered?
Not in every country. And it certainly wasn't in Germany, where all the actions at these camps had full legal approval from the highest possible authority in the land. Now of course what happened was wrong, but honestly I'm not happy about retrospective laws being applied. One of the principles we have in our justice system is that it doesn't matter if something is illegal now, if it was legal when you did it you won't be charged. This is a rather special case, it's a high profile one and a lot of people were killed in those camps so I can understand why people feel that it is necessary to apply a retrospective law and prosecute this man even though he wasn't doing anything illegal at the time.
By the way don't talk about "war crimes" because that entire concept is ridiculous. When you decide to go to war you have already broken one of the biggest universally accepted "rules"; You are killing people to get what you want. Why bother drawing up a set of rules to fight to, because if you've already decided it's acceptable to break one, you WILL inevitably break every other one when you get desperate enough. Also different situations would require different interpretations of what a crime is. You could argue that armies with the capability to precision strike targets commit a crime whenever they strike a civilian, but that rule would be unworkable for armies that can't hit with precision. Some less advanced armies in the world don't have smartbombs and need to fire at or bomb "over there in that general area" near where the enemy was last spotted. That invariably causes more civilian casualties than the more advanced army, but they don't have a choice because they are limited by their technology.
If the point is to establish the facts (rather than his narrated version of events).....what would be lost by his facing a trial?