Poll: Would you harbor a nazi?

[Dogstile]

Fine, tired of arguing the point anyway. Still think you're not correct though

That just prove that ether you are a religious fanatic, or an ignorant.
Can't decide who is worse.

The definition of race is people who come from the same genetic stock. Considering that anyone can become a Jew, I wouldn't consider the people a race as a whole.

Deal with it.

snip.

Sorry to say but that's extremly racist

I said forgive the man, with a historically Jewish God, a Jewish Savior, with a mixed ancestry that would have been looked down upon for being not being of a certain descent, and you have the right to claim I am racist?

This is the foolishness I just spoke of. So many sides are given the full right to use what is and isn't racism, yet in this case the Germans are not by any stretch of the imagination. Even then, the constant reoccuring imagery and force-fed notions that it was worse because it was done to the "Chosen People" could be seen as racist as well.

What the hell are you talking about, dude. We're not talking about prosecuting random Germans, we're talking about prosecuting a Nazi that committed crimes against humanity. Unless you think Jews don't count as a part of humanity, in which case you're a racist. And racism is bad, no matter who spouts it.

Sorry, you've made yourself look foolish.

Are you really claiming jews are a race?

Well, in common usage, the term "race" is misused as an arbitrary way to categorize people of different cultures/ethnicities, so I see no reason why I can't call Jews a race. In any case, just replace "racist" with "prejudiced," then. Do you have anything to say about my argument, or are you just nitpicking terms?

Common usage does not equal definition. Its common to refer to cotton buds as earbuds, but they're still cotton buds.

But no, prejudiced is fine. That fits the definition.

Not to piss on any parades, but the Jewish people are technically a race. It's quite possible to not be Jewish by faith but still technically carry Jewish blood, as it is transferred from a Jewish mother to the child. Just sayin'

Would you say the same for Christians and Buddhists?

Although, and i'll bold it to anyone replying to me.

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF RACE, IF WE GO BY BIOLOGICAL, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE, THEN I'M CORRECT, HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE GOING BY SOCIALLY, THEN YOU'RE POSSIBLY CORRECT

Right now, you're being really, really ignorant. Try talking to someone from an actual Jewish background, they'll explain it to you. Right now, by trying to talk to a descendant of Israelites, you're making an ass out of yourself.

Sure, because you've brought up so many points aside from "YOU'RE WRONG, HONEST, I MEAN IT".

How about you bring up a point other than "I think". At least i'm going by biological definition.

Fine, tired of arguing the point anyway. Still think you're not correct though

That just prove that ether you are a religious fanatic, or an ignorant.
Can't decide who is worse.

The definition of race is people who come from the same genetic stock. Considering that anyone can become a Jew, I wouldn't consider the people a race as a whole.

Deal with it.

snip.

Sorry to say but that's extremly racist

I said forgive the man, with a historically Jewish God, a Jewish Savior, with a mixed ancestry that would have been looked down upon for being not being of a certain descent, and you have the right to claim I am racist?

This is the foolishness I just spoke of. So many sides are given the full right to use what is and isn't racism, yet in this case the Germans are not by any stretch of the imagination. Even then, the constant reoccuring imagery and force-fed notions that it was worse because it was done to the "Chosen People" could be seen as racist as well.

What the hell are you talking about, dude. We're not talking about prosecuting random Germans, we're talking about prosecuting a Nazi that committed crimes against humanity. Unless you think Jews don't count as a part of humanity, in which case you're a racist. And racism is bad, no matter who spouts it.

Sorry, you've made yourself look foolish.

Are you really claiming jews are a race?

Well, in common usage, the term "race" is misused as an arbitrary way to categorize people of different cultures/ethnicities, so I see no reason why I can't call Jews a race. In any case, just replace "racist" with "prejudiced," then. Do you have anything to say about my argument, or are you just nitpicking terms?

Common usage does not equal definition. Its common to refer to cotton buds as earbuds, but they're still cotton buds.

But no, prejudiced is fine. That fits the definition.

Not to piss on any parades, but the Jewish people are technically a race. It's quite possible to not be Jewish by faith but still technically carry Jewish blood, as it is transferred from a Jewish mother to the child. Just sayin'

Would you say the same for Christians and Buddhists?

Although, and i'll bold it to anyone replying to me.

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF RACE, IF WE GO BY BIOLOGICAL, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE, THEN I'M CORRECT, HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE GOING BY SOCIALLY, THEN YOU'RE POSSIBLY CORRECT

Seems a bit odd to call someone foolish if you're not even sure what definition they're using...and it seems completely irrelevant to the thread topic too. Do you just go around picking fights for no reason?

There is a difference between picking fights and debating. However, you guys haven't tried explaining, at all. So please, guys

UNLESS YOU WANT TO BRING UP A POINT OTHER THAN "Dude, i'm right, you're ignorant, go talk to someone", don't bother replying.

No, you're picking an irrelevant part of a post that's not about race, but about crimes against humanity. Unless you have some kind of strange obsession with race arguments, you're just going off on a tangent (and throwing insults in the process). I'd call that picking a fight.

By the way, your definition of race being "people who come from one genetic stock" fits Jews just fine. We're not talking about people who read the Torah, we're talking about descendants of the Israelites. You know, the ones the Nazis targeted?

Considering this argument started because I called out a dude for calling a german guy racist for not liking jewish people. Throwing insults in the process? Please, I told you to come up with a point rather than just telling me i'm wrong. Its about time someone did.

My definition doesn't fit it just fine, as again, hitler, by my education, prosecuted jews, not hebrews. There /is/ a difference.

So, what you're saying is that when the Nazis found a Hebrew who converted to Christianity, they just let him go?

Hitler targeted Hebrews, or people with Hebrew ancestry, whatever. Maybe you think he got his terms wrong, but those are the terms that are relevant to this thread.

I was of the understanding that he persecuted the religion, not the race. (see, now we're getting somewhere!)

I'm quite sure it was the race (hey, you called it a race), not the religion. Or else Jews could've waltzed around saying "I don't actually believe" and escaped persecution.

We're not getting anywhere important though...so, let's assume you're right for the sake of argument. Ok, then Hitler killed people based on religion, not race. Is that any different? It's just a different set of terms, but just as evil, and that Nazi who turned his life around still needs to answer for his crimes.

Aha, I was actually arguing that it wasn't a race and shouldn't be called as such. I don't actually know if you're the guy I started arguing with in the first place, I can't remember. I'm going to assume we're both right until I find out. They're just referred to as jews everywhere I've looked at in the past hour.

Anywho, yes, still evil. He's been my neighbor for years though, and never done anything to me. Not my business, he can go hide somewhere else. I don't want anything to do with it.

 

[dyre]

Fine, tired of arguing the point anyway. Still think you're not correct though

That just prove that ether you are a religious fanatic, or an ignorant.
Can't decide who is worse.

The definition of race is people who come from the same genetic stock. Considering that anyone can become a Jew, I wouldn't consider the people a race as a whole.

Deal with it.

snip.

Sorry to say but that's extremly racist

I said forgive the man, with a historically Jewish God, a Jewish Savior, with a mixed ancestry that would have been looked down upon for being not being of a certain descent, and you have the right to claim I am racist?

This is the foolishness I just spoke of. So many sides are given the full right to use what is and isn't racism, yet in this case the Germans are not by any stretch of the imagination. Even then, the constant reoccuring imagery and force-fed notions that it was worse because it was done to the "Chosen People" could be seen as racist as well.

What the hell are you talking about, dude. We're not talking about prosecuting random Germans, we're talking about prosecuting a Nazi that committed crimes against humanity. Unless you think Jews don't count as a part of humanity, in which case you're a racist. And racism is bad, no matter who spouts it.

Sorry, you've made yourself look foolish.

Are you really claiming jews are a race?

Well, in common usage, the term "race" is misused as an arbitrary way to categorize people of different cultures/ethnicities, so I see no reason why I can't call Jews a race. In any case, just replace "racist" with "prejudiced," then. Do you have anything to say about my argument, or are you just nitpicking terms?

Common usage does not equal definition. Its common to refer to cotton buds as earbuds, but they're still cotton buds.

But no, prejudiced is fine. That fits the definition.

Not to piss on any parades, but the Jewish people are technically a race. It's quite possible to not be Jewish by faith but still technically carry Jewish blood, as it is transferred from a Jewish mother to the child. Just sayin'

Would you say the same for Christians and Buddhists?

Although, and i'll bold it to anyone replying to me.

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF RACE, IF WE GO BY BIOLOGICAL, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE, THEN I'M CORRECT, HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE GOING BY SOCIALLY, THEN YOU'RE POSSIBLY CORRECT

Right now, you're being really, really ignorant. Try talking to someone from an actual Jewish background, they'll explain it to you. Right now, by trying to talk to a descendant of Israelites, you're making an ass out of yourself.

Sure, because you've brought up so many points aside from "YOU'RE WRONG, HONEST, I MEAN IT".

How about you bring up a point other than "I think". At least i'm going by biological definition.

Fine, tired of arguing the point anyway. Still think you're not correct though

That just prove that ether you are a religious fanatic, or an ignorant.
Can't decide who is worse.

The definition of race is people who come from the same genetic stock. Considering that anyone can become a Jew, I wouldn't consider the people a race as a whole.

Deal with it.

snip.

Sorry to say but that's extremly racist

I said forgive the man, with a historically Jewish God, a Jewish Savior, with a mixed ancestry that would have been looked down upon for being not being of a certain descent, and you have the right to claim I am racist?

This is the foolishness I just spoke of. So many sides are given the full right to use what is and isn't racism, yet in this case the Germans are not by any stretch of the imagination. Even then, the constant reoccuring imagery and force-fed notions that it was worse because it was done to the "Chosen People" could be seen as racist as well.

What the hell are you talking about, dude. We're not talking about prosecuting random Germans, we're talking about prosecuting a Nazi that committed crimes against humanity. Unless you think Jews don't count as a part of humanity, in which case you're a racist. And racism is bad, no matter who spouts it.

Sorry, you've made yourself look foolish.

Are you really claiming jews are a race?

Well, in common usage, the term "race" is misused as an arbitrary way to categorize people of different cultures/ethnicities, so I see no reason why I can't call Jews a race. In any case, just replace "racist" with "prejudiced," then. Do you have anything to say about my argument, or are you just nitpicking terms?

Common usage does not equal definition. Its common to refer to cotton buds as earbuds, but they're still cotton buds.

But no, prejudiced is fine. That fits the definition.

Not to piss on any parades, but the Jewish people are technically a race. It's quite possible to not be Jewish by faith but still technically carry Jewish blood, as it is transferred from a Jewish mother to the child. Just sayin'

Would you say the same for Christians and Buddhists?

Although, and i'll bold it to anyone replying to me.

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF RACE, IF WE GO BY BIOLOGICAL, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE, THEN I'M CORRECT, HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE GOING BY SOCIALLY, THEN YOU'RE POSSIBLY CORRECT

Seems a bit odd to call someone foolish if you're not even sure what definition they're using...and it seems completely irrelevant to the thread topic too. Do you just go around picking fights for no reason?

There is a difference between picking fights and debating. However, you guys haven't tried explaining, at all. So please, guys

UNLESS YOU WANT TO BRING UP A POINT OTHER THAN "Dude, i'm right, you're ignorant, go talk to someone", don't bother replying.

No, you're picking an irrelevant part of a post that's not about race, but about crimes against humanity. Unless you have some kind of strange obsession with race arguments, you're just going off on a tangent (and throwing insults in the process). I'd call that picking a fight.

By the way, your definition of race being "people who come from one genetic stock" fits Jews just fine. We're not talking about people who read the Torah, we're talking about descendants of the Israelites. You know, the ones the Nazis targeted?

Considering this argument started because I called out a dude for calling a german guy racist for not liking jewish people. Throwing insults in the process? Please, I told you to come up with a point rather than just telling me i'm wrong. Its about time someone did.

My definition doesn't fit it just fine, as again, hitler, by my education, prosecuted jews, not hebrews. There /is/ a difference.

So, what you're saying is that when the Nazis found a Hebrew who converted to Christianity, they just let him go?

Hitler targeted Hebrews, or people with Hebrew ancestry, whatever. Maybe you think he got his terms wrong, but those are the terms that are relevant to this thread.

I was of the understanding that he persecuted the religion, not the race. (see, now we're getting somewhere!)

I'm quite sure it was the race (hey, you called it a race), not the religion. Or else Jews could've waltzed around saying "I don't actually believe" and escaped persecution.

We're not getting anywhere important though...so, let's assume you're right for the sake of argument. Ok, then Hitler killed people based on religion, not race. Is that any different? It's just a different set of terms, but just as evil, and that Nazi who turned his life around still needs to answer for his crimes.

Aha, I was actually arguing that it wasn't a race and shouldn't be called as such. I don't actually know if you're the guy I started arguing with in the first place, I can't remember. I'm going to assume we're both right until I find out. They're just referred to as jews everywhere I've looked at in the past hour.

Anywho, yes, still evil. He's been my neighbor for years though, and never done anything to me. Not my business, he can go hide somewhere else. I don't want anything to do with it.

Yes, that was me, so at least we're finally finishing this up.

I responded originally that it is common usage to refer to Jews as a race, so it's not "foolish" to call them such (unless you're one of those people who makes it a point to bother everyone who uses common phrases that don't strictly follow dictionary definitions).

I also pointed out that it's not really important, since we can just replace it with "prejudiced," and my point is fine.

I'm really not sure why this argument took so long :|

 

[Dogstile]

Fine, tired of arguing the point anyway. Still think you're not correct though

That just prove that ether you are a religious fanatic, or an ignorant.
Can't decide who is worse.

The definition of race is people who come from the same genetic stock. Considering that anyone can become a Jew, I wouldn't consider the people a race as a whole.

Deal with it.

snip.

Sorry to say but that's extremly racist

I said forgive the man, with a historically Jewish God, a Jewish Savior, with a mixed ancestry that would have been looked down upon for being not being of a certain descent, and you have the right to claim I am racist?

This is the foolishness I just spoke of. So many sides are given the full right to use what is and isn't racism, yet in this case the Germans are not by any stretch of the imagination. Even then, the constant reoccuring imagery and force-fed notions that it was worse because it was done to the "Chosen People" could be seen as racist as well.

What the hell are you talking about, dude. We're not talking about prosecuting random Germans, we're talking about prosecuting a Nazi that committed crimes against humanity. Unless you think Jews don't count as a part of humanity, in which case you're a racist. And racism is bad, no matter who spouts it.

Sorry, you've made yourself look foolish.

Are you really claiming jews are a race?

Well, in common usage, the term "race" is misused as an arbitrary way to categorize people of different cultures/ethnicities, so I see no reason why I can't call Jews a race. In any case, just replace "racist" with "prejudiced," then. Do you have anything to say about my argument, or are you just nitpicking terms?

Common usage does not equal definition. Its common to refer to cotton buds as earbuds, but they're still cotton buds.

But no, prejudiced is fine. That fits the definition.

Not to piss on any parades, but the Jewish people are technically a race. It's quite possible to not be Jewish by faith but still technically carry Jewish blood, as it is transferred from a Jewish mother to the child. Just sayin'

Would you say the same for Christians and Buddhists?

Although, and i'll bold it to anyone replying to me.

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF RACE, IF WE GO BY BIOLOGICAL, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE, THEN I'M CORRECT, HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE GOING BY SOCIALLY, THEN YOU'RE POSSIBLY CORRECT

Right now, you're being really, really ignorant. Try talking to someone from an actual Jewish background, they'll explain it to you. Right now, by trying to talk to a descendant of Israelites, you're making an ass out of yourself.

Sure, because you've brought up so many points aside from "YOU'RE WRONG, HONEST, I MEAN IT".

How about you bring up a point other than "I think". At least i'm going by biological definition.

Fine, tired of arguing the point anyway. Still think you're not correct though

That just prove that ether you are a religious fanatic, or an ignorant.
Can't decide who is worse.

The definition of race is people who come from the same genetic stock. Considering that anyone can become a Jew, I wouldn't consider the people a race as a whole.

Deal with it.

snip.

Sorry to say but that's extremly racist

I said forgive the man, with a historically Jewish God, a Jewish Savior, with a mixed ancestry that would have been looked down upon for being not being of a certain descent, and you have the right to claim I am racist?

This is the foolishness I just spoke of. So many sides are given the full right to use what is and isn't racism, yet in this case the Germans are not by any stretch of the imagination. Even then, the constant reoccuring imagery and force-fed notions that it was worse because it was done to the "Chosen People" could be seen as racist as well.

What the hell are you talking about, dude. We're not talking about prosecuting random Germans, we're talking about prosecuting a Nazi that committed crimes against humanity. Unless you think Jews don't count as a part of humanity, in which case you're a racist. And racism is bad, no matter who spouts it.

Sorry, you've made yourself look foolish.

Are you really claiming jews are a race?

Well, in common usage, the term "race" is misused as an arbitrary way to categorize people of different cultures/ethnicities, so I see no reason why I can't call Jews a race. In any case, just replace "racist" with "prejudiced," then. Do you have anything to say about my argument, or are you just nitpicking terms?

Common usage does not equal definition. Its common to refer to cotton buds as earbuds, but they're still cotton buds.

But no, prejudiced is fine. That fits the definition.

Not to piss on any parades, but the Jewish people are technically a race. It's quite possible to not be Jewish by faith but still technically carry Jewish blood, as it is transferred from a Jewish mother to the child. Just sayin'

Would you say the same for Christians and Buddhists?

Although, and i'll bold it to anyone replying to me.

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF RACE, IF WE GO BY BIOLOGICAL, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE, THEN I'M CORRECT, HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE GOING BY SOCIALLY, THEN YOU'RE POSSIBLY CORRECT

Seems a bit odd to call someone foolish if you're not even sure what definition they're using...and it seems completely irrelevant to the thread topic too. Do you just go around picking fights for no reason?

There is a difference between picking fights and debating. However, you guys haven't tried explaining, at all. So please, guys

UNLESS YOU WANT TO BRING UP A POINT OTHER THAN "Dude, i'm right, you're ignorant, go talk to someone", don't bother replying.

No, you're picking an irrelevant part of a post that's not about race, but about crimes against humanity. Unless you have some kind of strange obsession with race arguments, you're just going off on a tangent (and throwing insults in the process). I'd call that picking a fight.

By the way, your definition of race being "people who come from one genetic stock" fits Jews just fine. We're not talking about people who read the Torah, we're talking about descendants of the Israelites. You know, the ones the Nazis targeted?

Considering this argument started because I called out a dude for calling a german guy racist for not liking jewish people. Throwing insults in the process? Please, I told you to come up with a point rather than just telling me i'm wrong. Its about time someone did.

My definition doesn't fit it just fine, as again, hitler, by my education, prosecuted jews, not hebrews. There /is/ a difference.

So, what you're saying is that when the Nazis found a Hebrew who converted to Christianity, they just let him go?

Hitler targeted Hebrews, or people with Hebrew ancestry, whatever. Maybe you think he got his terms wrong, but those are the terms that are relevant to this thread.

I was of the understanding that he persecuted the religion, not the race. (see, now we're getting somewhere!)

I'm quite sure it was the race (hey, you called it a race), not the religion. Or else Jews could've waltzed around saying "I don't actually believe" and escaped persecution.

We're not getting anywhere important though...so, let's assume you're right for the sake of argument. Ok, then Hitler killed people based on religion, not race. Is that any different? It's just a different set of terms, but just as evil, and that Nazi who turned his life around still needs to answer for his crimes.

Aha, I was actually arguing that it wasn't a race and shouldn't be called as such. I don't actually know if you're the guy I started arguing with in the first place, I can't remember. I'm going to assume we're both right until I find out. They're just referred to as jews everywhere I've looked at in the past hour.

Anywho, yes, still evil. He's been my neighbor for years though, and never done anything to me. Not my business, he can go hide somewhere else. I don't want anything to do with it.

Yes, that was me, so at least we're finally finishing this up.

I responded originally that it is common usage to refer to Jews as a race, so it's not "foolish" to call them such (unless you're one of those people who makes it a point to bother everyone who uses common phrases that don't strictly follow dictionary definitions).

I also pointed out that it's not really important, since we can just replace it with "prejudiced," and my point is fine.

I'm really not sure why this argument took so long :|

I'm one of those people sadly. It took so long cos I'm a stubborn bastard. Either, glad we're done

 

[Riff Moonraker]

If he committed the atrocities that the nazis did, then I would be torn between turning him in, or just saving the taxpayers alot of money, and emptying a shell into his cranium myself. There IS no forgiveness for the heinous acts those murderers did to men, women, and children. None.

 

[JoshTheater]

This is a ridiculously stupid question. Why would the police be on his tail if he hasn't caused any trouble in the past 50 years or so? He would've had to do something to get them interested in him again, unless they just suddenly got lucky and JUST realized he used to be a Nazi.

But the bigger question here is if he knows the police are after him, why is he coming to your house and asking you to hide him? To me that would be the deal breaker. If I knew a former rehabilitated Nazi who was sorry for his crimes lived down the street from me, and the police came to my door and asked about him, I probably wouldn't turn him in. But if that man came to my house and asked me to hide him from the police in my house, I would say HELL NO. The fact that he would try to drag me into his situation and put me in the way of the law would show me that he's not completely rehabilitated yet.

I get the point of the question but it's a pretty terrible example you gave, OP.

 

[skywalkerlion]

I'm pretty fucking disgusted by the people who say they'd kill him themselves. Yeah, that's a good way to deal with the problem, just stab it to death in your kitchen. Way to go.

I voted that I'd take him in and hide him. Yes, the was a Nazi. So were millions of Germans. It's not like you had much free choice to NOT be a Nazi. If you were anywhere in the military at the time Hitler took over...BOOM, you're a Nazi now. You do what you're told, cause evidence shows Hitler was easily willing to kill his own men to keep control. Not to mention all the propaganda. Just saying, it can be hard to keep a rational world view where your superiors and everyone else around you are proclaiming Jews as the devil and some vermin that need to be destroyed.

I've always been raised that if someone is truly repentant for what they've done then they can start again. If this guy is truly, 100% sorry with all his heart, I don't see a problem with protecting him from the police that are randomly Nazi-hunting nowadays.

I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with the idea, but I value human life too much to turn him in where he'd either be killed or left to die in prison. I know this might seem weird when he was potentially responsible for many deaths in the 40s, but if I have the power to possible and realistically save one human life, then I'll do it.

Call me fucked up if you will, at least I'm not saying I'd murder the dude myself cause that'd make me as much a murderer as he is.

Exactly how I feel. I believe in forgiveness and if he's truly sorry, he should be forgiven.

 

[Sejs Cube]

Voted other as it would depend on the person. The one in the OP I would not turn in. Remorse is a big factor.

The other is the fact that membership in the Nazi party once the war got into swing was generally not optional. Regardless of your personal feelings on what was going on, if you got tapped you served or else. It led to there being a lot of desertions once it became clear that Germany wasn't going to come out ahead and those conscripted felt they could leave and not get shot or land their families in prison.

Welcome to the real world, things are rarely black and white here.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

No forgiveness for Nazis. It's as simple as that. I talked to holocaust survivors. I've seen the numbers. No amount of good deeds could ever fix what the Nazis, and especially the officers, did. No redemption for them, in this life, or any other.

I've spoken to about 3 survivors in my time. Only 1 of them still has any animosity towards the Nazis. The other 2 don't really see them as evil anymore. They don't defend them, but they don't rant about how sick and twisted and demonic they were.

If people who experienced it 1st hand don't have anger left over it, why should I suddenly feel horrified by it and want to punish them?

I would imagine that they have decided to live their lives and move on, and perhaps they just gave a passing answer to move away from the subject? I knew of a family whose grandfather was in one of the concentration camps, and he never broached the subject. Ever. I would believe that he went about his life and lived, but would want to see the monsters responsible to pay. But again, I dont know for sure. However, my uncle stormed the beaches of Normandy, and helped liberate at least one of the concentration camps. He only opened up about what he saw there once, and it was the stuff of nightmares. To his dying day, he would have gladly sent any nazi to meet their maker and had no qualms about it.

 

[SadakoMoose]

I'd harbor him.
He's old anyway, and is probably not long for this world.
Society, by and large, has learned it's lessons about Eugenics and Fascism. You can't walk two feet in any given debate forum without hear people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum be referred to as Nazis. At this point, it's about giving an old man some peace before the end.
Sociology is a complicated and funny thing sometimes.
Looking in 20/20 hindsight you'd think it'd be so very easy to just say no, and disobey orders.
That's because you didn't actually live in Nazi Germany, and have no real idea what sort of environment or societal pressures existed at that time. The human mind is a tricky thing.
Time to look towards making a better future, rather than stay bitter at the past like it'll actually change anything.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

No forgiveness for Nazis. It's as simple as that. I talked to holocaust survivors. I've seen the numbers. No amount of good deeds could ever fix what the Nazis, and especially the officers, did. No redemption for them, in this life, or any other.

I've spoken to about 3 survivors in my time. Only 1 of them still has any animosity towards the Nazis. The other 2 don't really see them as evil anymore. They don't defend them, but they don't rant about how sick and twisted and demonic they were.

If people who experienced it 1st hand don't have anger left over it, why should I suddenly feel horrified by it and want to punish them?

I would imagine that they have decided to live their lives and move on, and perhaps they just gave a passing answer to move away from the subject?

Obviously can't speak for every survivor, but the ones I spoke to were all too happy to talk about it. They figured everyone should know exactly what it was like to actually be there. With one of them in particular who came to my school once me and him had this really long conversation about it, and I actually asked him point blank: "Do you hate the Nazis for what they did to you and your people?" and his answer, after over half an hour of talking in detail about his experience, was a simple "No." He went on to say that while it was horrific, the stuff that happened, there's no point now still holding a grudge. It was still painful for him to remember all that stuff, but his thinking was that it was done ages ago. There's nothing to be done about it now and since the main high-ranking officers with any real power have been found and executed/imprisoned, there's no point in anybody holding a grudge against the ones that are left.

 

[awmperry]

They couldn't do anything about it. They were fools, and have changed. One exception. If the words or phrase "I was just following orders." come out of their mouth, I'm turning them in. To quote The 9th Doctor: "And with that sentence, you just lost the right to even talk to me."

Voted Yes, but with that caveat.

 

[Truehare]

For me it's a question of math: is he doing enough to make up for his crimes, or at least as much as he can possibly do? If the answer is yes, then let them be. If it's no, to jail with them.

My reasoning is simple: the horrible things they did are in the past, they can't be changed. But if they're doing good now, putting them away would only prevent that good from being done, i.e., it would only make things worse now. It wouldn't "undo" their wrongs, and it would take away from them a chance to make up for those wrongs.

Of course, a former nazi would have to be a f***ing saint to make up for what he did back then... But why couldn't he?

 

[Zaverexus]

If he were honestly sorry, then yes, I would make every attempt to protect him, screw the rules.
But being who I am I would be extremely skeptical of his having changed

(Captcha: arearm Crit)

 

[Peteron]

Yeah, I would harbor him. He is sorry for what he has done, and not all Nazis were bad, they were just led in a disgusting direction. Most of them were, though.

 

[replingham153]

READ BEFORE VOTING!

You live in a small town. In it, there is a man.

He is a generous man, kind to all and very into philanthropy. He is by any definition a good neighbour and friend.

One day he asks you to house him for a while. He tells you he was an officer in a concentration camp. He cries for a long time. He is very sorry for what he's done (which happens to be a lot). He knows he will never be able to fix what he has done, but is afraid of what will happen to him if he is incarcerated.

Police soon come to your door asking for him. What do you do?

I was talking about something similar with my english teacher. We are both very convinced that rehabilitation is the best solution to crime, but for very severe crimes there is an instant desire to make someone pay. Usually harshly. This is that internal debate at its logical extreme.

Edit: Crimes against humanity, in case you were wondering.

Duh of course I would! Why Nazis have been right all along. Don't you see there was a plot from the Jews and the Bolsheviks. I would welcome my fellow brother and we would eat schnitzel and watch porn together. He did what was necessary to keep the Aryan race pure and clean.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

No. They will get him regardless and I don't exactly want to get myself in shit for his sake.

 

[Seydaman]

House him
Everyone has the right to redemption

 

[Seydaman]

They couldn't do anything about it. They were fools, and have changed. One exception. If the words or phrase "I was just following orders." come out of their mouth, I'm turning them in. To quote The 9th Doctor: "And with that sentence, you just lost the right to even talk to me."

The "Following Orders" thing only seems to work if you were forced into service, the closest I can compare it to is the USSR, when they drafted in soldiers, and killed anyone who didn't follow orders.
I'm fairly sure you had to volunteer to be an officer at a concentration camp.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

They couldn't do anything about it. They were fools, and have changed. One exception. If the words or phrase "I was just following orders." come out of their mouth, I'm turning them in. To quote The 9th Doctor: "And with that sentence, you just lost the right to even talk to me."

There was a psychological experiment performed,which proved many people will actually do very terrible things when being told to by a strong authoritative figure. The psychological experiment, known as the Milgram Experiment, was made over an issue about a Nazi who was on trial. The Nazi had performed terrible acts but his excuse was "It wasn't his fault, he was just following orders." So the experiment was made, and it proved many people will even go so far as to commit murder when told to by a strong authoritative figure. Its just science.

Back to the topic, depending on what country I live in and what time period and if I knew the police where after him or not. I'm in Australia, 2011 and I know the police are after him, this would become awkward as I have a hard time telling people no. But if this was in somewhere like Russia or maybe even America in 1945 or 1950, I would have to reject him, otherwise it is very possible I would be killed. Although if I didn't know the police were after him, I would permit him to enter.