[LinearPhilosopher]

http://www.theguardi...MP=share_btn_fb

Interesting article i bumped into. For my two cents i don't find myself agreeing with the judge on this case. The individual wasn't the one killing people and wasn't ordering people to do so. He tried to get out of his situation several times. Yet he is being punished. I think it's a bit unfair as what alternative did he have? Grab an mp40 and shoot his fellow officers? Sneak some food to the prisoners hoping he isn't caught?

I'm curious as to what you think

[Maark Abbott]

As you say, tricky. Whilst he may have been an accessory to it by virtue of knowing what was going on and not doing anything to stop it, had he tried to do anything to stop it he'd have been shot.

[Studlock]

Yeah sorry, you don't just fall into being an SS officer. I have no doubt he feels guilt at what happen and he should because he played a part in them and as such should be punished for it.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Studlock, on 16 July 2015 - 07:26 PM, said:

Yeah sorry, you don't just fall into being an SS officer. I have no doubt he feels guilt at what happen and he should because he played a part in them and as such should be punished for it.

my knowledge of those times isn't what it used to be. Explain to me what the requirements to join the SS were?

[Aptorian]

I think this is bullshit.

From what I gather from the article he was the equivalent of a public servant, doing the states paper work during war time. By his own account he condemned the actions of his own fellow Nazis. One does not become a warcriminal just by association.

He's 90 years old. Even if he was a rabidly xenophobic uber nazi 70 years ago are to believe a person does not change in such a time frame? The person he was then is not who he is now. I don't care how horrible Auschwitz was, 70 years is a life time of change.

I am not saying that the guy, shouldn't or couldn't have served time, for being associated with the running of the camp. However if a punishment should have been dished out it should have taken place 70-60 years ago.

This post has been edited by Apt: 16 July 2015 - 08:10 PM

[Studlock]

Auschwitz ate more than 70 years of a life time of change. He was a SS officer--he joined the organization because he wanted to be apart of an elite Nazi group and fully believed in the ultra-nationalism they spouted until he heard the screams--that's a little to late. Dudes being charged with exactly what he committed: accessory to murder--300 of them. He wasn't a public servant, he was bookman for the SS--which to answer BalrogLords question one would have to specifically enlist that SS, be physically fit and be of 'pure Aryan stock'.

Like you said he's lived a full and long life and now it's time to be punished for past ills.

EDIT: I agree Apt it should have come early, it really should have.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 16 July 2015 - 08:19 PM

[Aptorian]

But is punishment really justice in this case?

Modern justice systems are if we want to get into the philosophies of state, not strictly meant to punish. Punishing people does not prevent crimes, nor does it balance the scales, lives cannot be returned, pain can not be soothed by just punishing somebody. Crimes are punished so that they may act as a warning and as a reminder, bother that crime does not pay, and that doing something criminal is bad. Prisons are not meant to punish either, they are meant to correct and hopefully rehabilitate bad people. Strictly speaking, they're just warehouses for the people that society failed (or the people who are beyond help).

So what do we get out of putting this guy in a jail cell? Or strictly speaking he's probably going into some kind of hospice, lest the media turn it into some circus about cruel and unjust punishment. What is the point? It's not to heal the wounds. What wounds the horrors of WW2 left are either scabbed over long ago or will never heal. Is it symbolic? To show that war crimes will never be forgot and they will find you? If it is, it's certainly a hollow gesture. History has shown how much of a farce the Nuremberg trials were and the West has certainly not stopped committing new war crimes.

So is it then about the criminal? What are we doing here? Punishing him? So that he never does it again? So that he may attone for the lives 300,000 people? How do you even begin to do that and is it really him that should be punished? Are we trying to change him? Will he now be rehabilitated so he stops being a war criminal? The war is long gone.

I think this is a farce. It's various institutions earning cheap political points on something that quite literally happened a life time ago. It's a waste of tax payer money. There is nothing to be gained from this. I cannot wait for the last people born before 1945 die off so that we may put WW2 in the past, if only History channel would allow it.

[Coco with marshmallows]

my 0.02 - nope, he should have been left as is.

(in other words, they should have prosecuted him 40/50 years ago, not left it till now)

As it is, he was publicly facing down holocaust deniers by coming forward as an eye witness to the atrocities and telling people that it absolutely DID happen as he saw it happen.

Regarding the point about entry requirements - basically same as the army in terms of fitness.

Studlock is correct in saying that he volunteered for the SS. My caveat to that would be that the SS were better paid/fed/clothed than the regular army - so it was more attractive to people than the regular forces. While he may well have been a raving nazi supporter, he's just as likely to have volunteered for the extra cash/food/whatever. Ultimately it's impossible to know his motivations of 70+ years ago.


Also, does it count as a Godwin when the thread subject is already about Nazis?

[LinearPhilosopher]

Coco with marshmallows, on 16 July 2015 - 09:02 PM, said:

my 0.02 - nope, he should have been left as is.

(in other words, they should have prosecuted him 40/50 years ago, not left it till now)

As it is, he was publicly facing down holocaust deniers by coming forward as an eye witness to the atrocities and telling people that it absolutely DID happen as he saw it happen.

Regarding the point about entry requirements - basically same as the army in terms of fitness.

Studlock is correct in saying that he volunteered for the SS. My caveat to that would be that the SS were better paid/fed/clothed than the regular army - so it was more attractive to people than the regular forces. While he may well have been a raving nazi supporter, he's just as likely to have volunteered for the extra cash/food/whatever. Ultimately it's impossible to know his motivations of 70+ years ago.


Also, does it count as a Godwin when the thread subject is already about Nazis?

It doesn't. Godwin's law states that an argument will eventually devolve into a comparison between an idnvidual or group with the nazis. This discussion had nazis at it's starting point so there's no devolving yet. Now say we all started comparing each other to nazis in a page or two, then godwin's law would take hold but i think we're all civil enough to avoid that.

In regards to studlock's point, though the SS by all accounts were more fanatical in their beliefs, that isn't a crime in of itself. Last i check a strong love for your country coupled with a complete lack of critical thinking and some xenophobia isn't criminal in of itself. It's the actions you commit with that mindset that is or isn't criminal. We're not qunari, we're not living under the qun so just having racist thoughts isn't a crime, acting upon those thoughts would be.

[Studlock]

But he did act, he signed up for the SS and keep the books for them--I'm really surprised anyone would defend his actions--he is assessor to thousand of murders and he served barely anytime--he got to live a full and long life, and no matter what his motives were he was apart of the most successful industrial genocide ever. The crime was being a Nazi and participating in genocide (he only regretted his actions after he heard the screams from the gas chambers and not before--its not as if Auschwitz was peaches & cream before they started gasing people).

To address Apt more philosophical point: I'm not saying that the law system as it is perfect but for me, in the West, it does one of two thing (or should): acts as a rehabilitation 'centre' for those who can being, in this case it doesn't have to, and acts as a place where justice is upheld--so yes symbolic. I understand how it might be 'hollow' though everything has been 'hollow' since WW2 (which I doubt we'll get beyond any time soon--sorry mate, you can't have the biggest bloodiest war ever and then not have that have huge consequences a 100 years afterward) because nation-states act on the basis, for the most part, realpolitik but that doesn't mean that we still can't upheld justice. Paper pushers were still a part of genocide--and this one worked at Auschwitz. At that point, no matter your reason for joining the SS, or your nationalistic intent, you've gone beyond the pale.

That being said its not as if I don't recognize the practicality of your arguments--why now hes an old man? I don't know--but I have a hard seeing how a accessory to genocide, as a crime, goes away.

[Andorion]

If I am not wrong quite a few geriatric relics of the genocidla Cambodian regime were tried and puished recently for crimes against humanity. There isn't a statute of limitations on genocide. He volunteered to join the SS.

Ther have been comments about how he should have been punished decades before. If he was truly remorseful, he should have surrendered himself to the authorities decades before.

[Abyss]

There's no statutory time limit on complicity with attempted genocide.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Studlock, on 17 July 2015 - 02:49 AM, said:

But he did act, he signed up for the SS and keep the books for them--I'm really surprised anyone would defend his actions--he is assessor to thousand of murders and he served barely anytime--he got to live a full and long life, and no matter what his motives were he was apart of the most successful industrial genocide ever. The crime was being a Nazi and participating in genocide (he only regretted his actions after he heard the screams from the gas chambers and not before--its not as if Auschwitz was peaches & cream before they started gasing people).

By virtue of what i stated earlier, signing up for the SS does not make you a criminal. People didnt know about the camps till the war was over. Auschwits became a sort of beogeyman for the children in the later years of the war. He did his best to leave, but what else could he have done? (bear in mind milgram and stanford experiments before you make your reply)

[Studlock]

The Stanford prison experiment has been criticized heavily within psychology for years (here's a good break down of the arguments on both sides: https://www.psycholo...ison-experiment) but that's beside the point--being apart of SS makes, by definition, an accessory to genocide and thus a criminal. The SS worked very closely with those who ran the camps, they arrested and sent the people to them, they set fire to the ghettos. Being apart of the SS meant you were apart of the most aggressive and idealistic part of the Nazi war machine as well as its paramilitary police forces.

Auschwitz hasn't a boogeyman, its here 1.1 million died (which is about the size of the city I live in Edmonton which is kind darkly mind-blowing to think about). As what else he could have done? Not join the SS for one. Regulars, while not blameless in the war (please don't be one of those people who think the Nazi armies were just doing their patriotic duty) weren't tried as war criminals for simply fighting. But he didn't. He choose to become about the group that administrated genocide.

[Andorion]

I would just like to put things in a broader context. Apology in advance if it comes of as a rant or incoherent. I haven't had a lot of time to formulate this.


The Holocaust is one of the most if not the single most traumatic events in modern history. In its wake there was a broad consensus about puinshing the guilty and ensuring that it didn't happen again. But the reality was differnt. Both the USA and the USSR co-opted hundreds if not thousands of officials and scientists of the Nazi regime to bolster their own power. This was Cold War logic. If they didn't the other side would and gain a huge advantage. So already, while the death-camps were still being dismantled and the refugees being relocated promises were broken.

And then genocide continued

Tens of millions died in Siberia nd in Mao's China.
The Cambodian genocide.
Numerous pogroms in Africa.
The ethnic conflict and genocide in erstwhile Yugoslavia

The Armenian genocide of WW1 vintage is still not acknowledge dby many.
I do not believe any action was taken against the horrendous genocide perpetrated agains nameless africans in the Belgian Congo

My point is that the Holocaust, genocide and the evil that caused and causes this is not some spectre lost in the past. It can happen again. To kill and eliminate an entire race, ethnic, or linguistic group, you need to otherise them, cast them as different, alien. Then you need to dehumanize tham, portray them as bestial, dangerous. Then the killing becomes easier. Can anybody deny that otherisation has not taken place in the modern world? Its everywhere. The dehumanization is well along its own way. The ISIS situation, the Israeli situation are some of the most explicit examples of this trend. If the balance of power in a particular relationship of hate shifts enough, genocide will happen.

That is why Holocaust denial is such a big deal. That is why a person who volunteered for the SS has to be punished. Actions have to have consequences.

[Morgoth]

Apt, on 16 July 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:

I think this is bullshit.

From what I gather from the article he was the equivalent of a public servant, doing the states paper work during war time. By his own account he condemned the actions of his own fellow Nazis. One does not become a warcriminal just by association.

He's 90 years old. Even if he was a rabidly xenophobic uber nazi 70 years ago are to believe a person does not change in such a time frame? The person he was then is not who he is now. I don't care how horrible Auschwitz was, 70 years is a life time of change.

I am not saying that the guy, shouldn't or couldn't have served time, for being associated with the running of the camp. However if a punishment should have been dished out it should have taken place 70-60 years ago.

For one thing, an SS officer is not the equivelant of a public servant. The SS were the military branch of the Nazi party, not just a branch of the army. They had numerous requirements for being accepted, including ideological purity.

And to reference another post; better clothes and food? Really? What kind of place do you imagine Germany was before the war?

BalrogLord, on 17 July 2015 - 03:52 AM, said:

Studlock, on 17 July 2015 - 02:49 AM, said:

But he did act, he signed up for the SS and keep the books for them--I'm really surprised anyone would defend his actions--he is assessor to thousand of murders and he served barely anytime--he got to live a full and long life, and no matter what his motives were he was apart of the most successful industrial genocide ever. The crime was being a Nazi and participating in genocide (he only regretted his actions after he heard the screams from the gas chambers and not before--its not as if Auschwitz was peaches & cream before they started gasing people).

By virtue of what i stated earlier, signing up for the SS does not make you a criminal. People didnt know about the camps till the war was over. Auschwits became a sort of beogeyman for the children in the later years of the war. He did his best to leave, but what else could he have done? (bear in mind milgram and stanford experiments before you make your reply)

This is simply not true. Knowledge of the camps were widespread and, in this particular case, the guy worked at Auschwitz. Maybe he couldn't have done anything for the prisoners, but he could have refused to take part, as many did. Even the Nazis didn't execute people for refusing administrative duties. He could have been demoted, dismissed, or moved somewhere else.

Apt raises a more interesting point I think. The Court system is not about revenge, it's about rehabilitation and the common good. However, genocide is the very worst crime possible, and fostering a culture where those kind of actions are something that will never stop haunting you is a common good I think. This man participated in maybe the worst atrocities ever commited by people and now, after more than 70 years, it has finally caught up with him.

[R3per_Inc]

Some viewpoints on the SS and the lack of understanding of Nazigermany is really disturbing.

[Morgoth]

R3per_Inc, on 17 July 2015 - 06:50 AM, said:

Some viewpoints on the SS and the lack of understanding of Nazigermany is really disturbing.

Not entirely surprising though. When I took modern history in upper secondary school I realised what I head learned before had been so watered down and simplified it might as well have been about something else altogether. Happens all the time still, the upper secondary school course was limited too, just slightly less so. It's not bad, the Norwegian School system, but the second world war -- all history really -- is complicated.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 17 July 2015 - 07:08 AM

[R3per_Inc]

Morgoth, on 17 July 2015 - 07:02 AM, said:

R3per_Inc, on 17 July 2015 - 06:50 AM, said:

Some viewpoints on the SS and the lack of understanding of Nazigermany is really disturbing.

Not entirely surprising though. When I took modern history in upper secondary school I realised what I head learned before had been so watered down and simplified it might as well have been about something else altogether. Happens all the time still, the upper secondary school course was limited too, just slightly less so. It's not bad, the Norwegian School system, but the second world war -- all history really -- is complicated.

Yet it is actually quite easy: Just read "Mein Kampf" and understand that they took each word of this book serious and followed it step by step, word for word. You can't compare the german Nazi's to the everydays racists or fanatics.

[Morgoth]

You cannot understand Nazi Germany by reading Mein Kampf alone. Just like you cannot understand the Russian revolution by reading Marx alone.

I'm not sure what the point of your image is supposed to be, but I reckon it's not particularly relevant to this thread.