One the one hand, I´d love for someone to go to prison over the holocaust. One the other hand, he´s really REALLY old, and I´m against doing bad things to old people. My advice, hand him over to Israel... Let them decide what to do with him..
91 year old sentenced to jail for his role in killing Jews.
- Thread starter SovietSecrets
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If he had simply been a Nazi I'd say he deserved it. However, the fact that he was probably a POW throws a pretty big wrench into the problem. If given the choice between your own life and the lives of strangers, nearly everyone would pick their own. People do what they can to survive. It's ugly, but having been given the choice between becoming a Nazi prisoner guard or being shot, it's not surprising he went with being a guard.
That's the entire problem with this case as a whole, the man is, for all intensive purposes on his last leg; they've already spent way more of taxpayers money on the case than they should have.MasterOfWorlds said:
Unfortunately whats done is done, might as well have pointless internet arguments over the subject.
I think you are referring to the statute of limitations and I do not believe war crimes have one. And nor does murder in a lot of cases.HerbertTheHamster said:
That is true. What is also true is that: "(He)...had been exonerated in a separate Holocaust trial two decades ago in Israel. In that trial he was initially sentenced to death for being the notorious "Ivan the Terrible'' camp guard at Treblinka in Poland."Arachon said:
So yes, he was a POW, but it doesn't look like he hated his job does it?
Lock the b*st*rd up, "whats done is done" is a ridiculous phrase, especially here.
I don't see any use in locking him up aside for the purpose of wasting more tax money and make the prisons more crowded than they already are.
He's gonna be dead soon anyway, put him in a home for old people where he'll at least would have to pay for his stay.
But of course they'll choose to not use the tax money for something less useless.
He's gonna be dead soon anyway, put him in a home for old people where he'll at least would have to pay for his stay.
But of course they'll choose to not use the tax money for something less useless.
Oh my god! A guard from one of the Nazi death camps has been put in prison literally 60-70 years after the crime was committed What?! This guy was-and this is a quote "Demjanjuk is accused of having served as a "Wachmann," a guard, the lowest rank of the "Hilfswillige" volunteers, who were subordinate to German SS men." How on earth is this a victory for justice? Jesus christ, just let the guy go. What happened, happened and arresting an old man who will probably die in the next few years is not going to solve anything. It's not like arresting him will suddenly let all the people who died at that camp spring back to life. He (hopefully) regrets his actions in the past and probably lives with the guilt every day.
This is ridiculous. Even disregarding his age, there's a big difference between refusing to disobey orders from the political party to you chose to join, and refusing to disobey the men who captured you and could clearly put in the same camp they told you to guard.
Yes, let's punish the executioner by executing him. You know, to show the world how much better we are than him, and how horrible his crimes were.gostchiken said:
I think it's pretty much pointless to imprison him at this point, if he hasn't been punished enough through sheer guilt by this point then he never will be, and considering he can barely move I doubt prison would be much of a difference. However I do think he should be imprisoned, only because it sets the precedent that you can't wait-out the law, and that you can't get away with a crime by avoiding capture or being found out for a while.
What's done is done? 9/11 was ten years ago but America hasn't let it go and now Usama is dead (or so we're supposed to believe). What I'm basically saying is let him rot.
But WWII ended in Europe at least in 1944 (45 in Japan) most of the victims were children and while I feel he should be prosecuted its kind of a mute point now to imprison him when the best years of his life have been spent he's got one foot in the grave, might as well convict and let him live with the shame of his past. Otherwise he's just a burden to the state who's going to have to preserve his life in order for him to serve a full sentence.run_forrest_run said:
I am jewish, but I don't know what to think of this.
If he is guilty of being a murderous bastard, then let him get prison for life without visits.
If he was only a watchguard, the lowest position, then go easy on him.
If the license was faked, like the defense said, then get him the fuck back to his family.
After READING the article, I am not in the position to say how guilty he was. There are too many places for variables and too much uncertainty.
If he is guilty of being a murderous bastard, then let him get prison for life without visits.
If he was only a watchguard, the lowest position, then go easy on him.
If the license was faked, like the defense said, then get him the fuck back to his family.
After READING the article, I am not in the position to say how guilty he was. There are too many places for variables and too much uncertainty.
waste of time. he'll be dead soon anyway, and he'd die of natural causes before they could legally execute him, and a life sentence would last, what, 2 years?
also, unless he was one of the higher-ups, it's very probable that he was just coerced or manipulated into service- he may not have had much of a choice.
Unless he was one of the guys higher on the chain of command, chances are he didn't have a choice and having to live with what he did is punishment enough.
also, unless he was one of the higher-ups, it's very probable that he was just coerced or manipulated into service- he may not have had much of a choice.
Unless he was one of the guys higher on the chain of command, chances are he didn't have a choice and having to live with what he did is punishment enough.
There is no statute of limitations on murder, so yea, I agree with the decision. However, at this point it feels like he pretty much got away with it.
Anyway, I think the most important piece of that article was this:
Anyway, I think the most important piece of that article was this:
Israel has an official CHIEF NAZI HUNTER. Can you say best job ever?
My opinion is that the situation is complicated by the dubious nature of evidence, especially in cases this old. What's more bringing up The Holocaust tends to have a lot of people toss common sense out the window no matter the nature of the accusation. This guy having been cleared by Isreal pretty much says all that needs to be said as far as I'm concerned.
Speaking for myself I think this is mostly a German show trial. To be honest Germany is in an awkward place right now because it tries to make a big show out of being extremely sorry and anti-nazi, while on the other hand there are some disturbing undercurrents coming from that country constantly that play havoc with those claims. Right now, there remains a huge number of people who take a "germany is faking" attitude, or believe that there is a core of extremists left in their power structure that simply know how to play the denial game... watch one hand, while the other is doing something else. Dragging out this guy, and then executing him for Nazi war crimes probably being a way they think they can prove how much they have changed.... when really this is just murder for political gain, as again, if there was much to tie this guy to war crimes, the Isrealis probably would have nailed him to a wall the last time it was brought up. That's my thoughts at any rate.
I'll also be honest in saying that a lot of attitudes against camp guards tend to disgust me in general. Every time I see a show like "Doctor Who" making some huge statement how "Just following orders" is not an excuse, usually makes me very angry. See, it's easy to criticize someone for following orders when you have distance from it. In reality when your within an organization like that and NOT following orders means you being horribly punished or killed, your not given a lot of choice. It's easy to say what someone in that situation SHOULD do from a distance, or to think you would have acted differant when your not actually in that guy's shoes. This doesn't excuse ALL behavior by nazi camp guards, as some of them probably were gleefully sadistic monsters, but at the same time I think a lot of them were probably guys who just weren't heroes. It's one thing to lionize a hero, and have deep respect for someone who steps up at great personal risk or danger, or who sacrifices themselves for a point, it's quite another to look down on someone for NOT being a hero though. I think there is a middle ground here between a guy being a hero standing against the regime, and being some kind of murderous monster.
I say this because I have ill will against any group to the point where I'd support a death camp. Truthfully at my very worst, my attitude is that such excesses are pointless, since if your going to kill them, just embrace a "take no prisoners" attitude on the battlefield (and it would go well off subject for me to explain the differances for those that don't get it). To put things into perspective if I was serving my country, and agreeing with most of what they were doing, but not this, the odds of me choosing to get myself killed and have my family punished to make some symbolic point would be minimal. If I was given an oppertunity to do something to influance policy, or stop the camps, without getting myself or my loved ones killed, I'd probably take it, but I'm not going to tell my commanding officer "No" and then get myself put against a wall and shot, while the goverment starts eyeballing my family to see if they are also "treasonous". This by definition just makes me a human being, I'm not a hero, but I'm not a supervillain either. For most people the oppertunity to make a differance without subjecting themselves to certain death in situations like this does not often present itself. Besides, after they shoot me, the guy they bring in over my cooling corpse to replace me is going to look at MY body and go do the job anyway, so you know... it's not like even my symbolic point is going to spark any kind of flames. Mostly it's just going to make people go "Sh@t I don't want to be him". Basically I feel you have no right to judge someone for following orders in part of an organization like this with those kinds of risks.
I'll also say that while they were the bad guys, there is a differance between someone being a German patriot and getting caught up in the furor to better himself and his country, and someone who was a war criminal. Killing for your country, and even going about the ugly business of war, does not mean someone should be considered a war criminal. Once it's over it's time to chill out. One side's heroes are the other side's war criminals, and which winds up being which depends entirely on the winner. A favorite example (which has nothing to do with camps) is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Harris
"Bomber" Harris, or "Butcher" Harris as he was known to the germans, was a British war hero who was knighted for his heroism. His big thing was that he was one of the guys who turned around and proceeded to bomb the living bejeezus out of German cities irregardless of collateral damage. "Area Bombing" basiscally meaning "kill as many civilians as possible to break the Germans will to fight", which is pretty much fighting a serious war with the intent of winning. War Sucks because of things like this.
As we, the heroic allies, won the war, we proceed to scream about how Germans were monsterous mass murderers because of what they did during "The Blitz" when we did the same thing, for the same basic reasons, when we were in a position to. You say some camp guard was a mass murderer who "contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands" but what about Harris here, he's a mass murderer, he killed defenseless civilians, and he's a hero, the Brits knighted the guy for this. The differance being that our side won the war so we get to decide who the heroes were.
I'm an extreme realist when it comes to war, which is pretty rare, especially for a militant I think. I'm pretty much of the attitude that when it's over, it's over, and when the surrender has taken place, hunting down people from the other side for fighting in a war, which is a nasty thing, is a bit excessive. It's only really appropriate if you figure that they represent a continued threat, and really when it comes to guys like camp guards, who were doing what was a pretty horrible and shitty job to begin with, hunting them down in most cases is mostly pointless. I think people need to remember that when it's over, it's over, and that if things had gone the other way, the same arguements could be made. A guy like Bomber Harris is no threat without his plane really, and if he isn't involved in trying to continue the war, there is no reason to just let him go home. The same arguement can be made about a lot (but of course not all) of these people being brought up for war crimes during a decades old war. The fact that this guy is 91 years old and hasn't really done anything since the war ended is pretty much a sign that even if everything said about him while he was in the military and a war was on was true, there is no reason to kill him now that it's done with.
I know many people will disagree with me, and I probably haven't expressed my thoughts perfectly, but this is what I think. I hardly have any love for the Nazis, and The Holocaust was terrible, but this seems to be nothing but a show murder for the sake of politics... and like for the third time, The Jews are the vengeful ones (with good reasons) and if they didn't feel this guy needed to have wrongs avenged on him, where the heck does the German goverment get off. Under duress or not, the guy was acting in service to them, even under another regime. They can deny it all they want, but even after losing a war they should respect people who served their country, even if the people in charge then, are differant from those in charge now.
Speaking for myself I think this is mostly a German show trial. To be honest Germany is in an awkward place right now because it tries to make a big show out of being extremely sorry and anti-nazi, while on the other hand there are some disturbing undercurrents coming from that country constantly that play havoc with those claims. Right now, there remains a huge number of people who take a "germany is faking" attitude, or believe that there is a core of extremists left in their power structure that simply know how to play the denial game... watch one hand, while the other is doing something else. Dragging out this guy, and then executing him for Nazi war crimes probably being a way they think they can prove how much they have changed.... when really this is just murder for political gain, as again, if there was much to tie this guy to war crimes, the Isrealis probably would have nailed him to a wall the last time it was brought up. That's my thoughts at any rate.
I'll also be honest in saying that a lot of attitudes against camp guards tend to disgust me in general. Every time I see a show like "Doctor Who" making some huge statement how "Just following orders" is not an excuse, usually makes me very angry. See, it's easy to criticize someone for following orders when you have distance from it. In reality when your within an organization like that and NOT following orders means you being horribly punished or killed, your not given a lot of choice. It's easy to say what someone in that situation SHOULD do from a distance, or to think you would have acted differant when your not actually in that guy's shoes. This doesn't excuse ALL behavior by nazi camp guards, as some of them probably were gleefully sadistic monsters, but at the same time I think a lot of them were probably guys who just weren't heroes. It's one thing to lionize a hero, and have deep respect for someone who steps up at great personal risk or danger, or who sacrifices themselves for a point, it's quite another to look down on someone for NOT being a hero though. I think there is a middle ground here between a guy being a hero standing against the regime, and being some kind of murderous monster.
I say this because I have ill will against any group to the point where I'd support a death camp. Truthfully at my very worst, my attitude is that such excesses are pointless, since if your going to kill them, just embrace a "take no prisoners" attitude on the battlefield (and it would go well off subject for me to explain the differances for those that don't get it). To put things into perspective if I was serving my country, and agreeing with most of what they were doing, but not this, the odds of me choosing to get myself killed and have my family punished to make some symbolic point would be minimal. If I was given an oppertunity to do something to influance policy, or stop the camps, without getting myself or my loved ones killed, I'd probably take it, but I'm not going to tell my commanding officer "No" and then get myself put against a wall and shot, while the goverment starts eyeballing my family to see if they are also "treasonous". This by definition just makes me a human being, I'm not a hero, but I'm not a supervillain either. For most people the oppertunity to make a differance without subjecting themselves to certain death in situations like this does not often present itself. Besides, after they shoot me, the guy they bring in over my cooling corpse to replace me is going to look at MY body and go do the job anyway, so you know... it's not like even my symbolic point is going to spark any kind of flames. Mostly it's just going to make people go "Sh@t I don't want to be him". Basically I feel you have no right to judge someone for following orders in part of an organization like this with those kinds of risks.
I'll also say that while they were the bad guys, there is a differance between someone being a German patriot and getting caught up in the furor to better himself and his country, and someone who was a war criminal. Killing for your country, and even going about the ugly business of war, does not mean someone should be considered a war criminal. Once it's over it's time to chill out. One side's heroes are the other side's war criminals, and which winds up being which depends entirely on the winner. A favorite example (which has nothing to do with camps) is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Harris
"Bomber" Harris, or "Butcher" Harris as he was known to the germans, was a British war hero who was knighted for his heroism. His big thing was that he was one of the guys who turned around and proceeded to bomb the living bejeezus out of German cities irregardless of collateral damage. "Area Bombing" basiscally meaning "kill as many civilians as possible to break the Germans will to fight", which is pretty much fighting a serious war with the intent of winning. War Sucks because of things like this.
As we, the heroic allies, won the war, we proceed to scream about how Germans were monsterous mass murderers because of what they did during "The Blitz" when we did the same thing, for the same basic reasons, when we were in a position to. You say some camp guard was a mass murderer who "contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands" but what about Harris here, he's a mass murderer, he killed defenseless civilians, and he's a hero, the Brits knighted the guy for this. The differance being that our side won the war so we get to decide who the heroes were.
I'm an extreme realist when it comes to war, which is pretty rare, especially for a militant I think. I'm pretty much of the attitude that when it's over, it's over, and when the surrender has taken place, hunting down people from the other side for fighting in a war, which is a nasty thing, is a bit excessive. It's only really appropriate if you figure that they represent a continued threat, and really when it comes to guys like camp guards, who were doing what was a pretty horrible and shitty job to begin with, hunting them down in most cases is mostly pointless. I think people need to remember that when it's over, it's over, and that if things had gone the other way, the same arguements could be made. A guy like Bomber Harris is no threat without his plane really, and if he isn't involved in trying to continue the war, there is no reason to just let him go home. The same arguement can be made about a lot (but of course not all) of these people being brought up for war crimes during a decades old war. The fact that this guy is 91 years old and hasn't really done anything since the war ended is pretty much a sign that even if everything said about him while he was in the military and a war was on was true, there is no reason to kill him now that it's done with.
I know many people will disagree with me, and I probably haven't expressed my thoughts perfectly, but this is what I think. I hardly have any love for the Nazis, and The Holocaust was terrible, but this seems to be nothing but a show murder for the sake of politics... and like for the third time, The Jews are the vengeful ones (with good reasons) and if they didn't feel this guy needed to have wrongs avenged on him, where the heck does the German goverment get off. Under duress or not, the guy was acting in service to them, even under another regime. They can deny it all they want, but even after losing a war they should respect people who served their country, even if the people in charge then, are differant from those in charge now.