[user104658]

It should never be forgotten but equally important is that the truth of it should never be forgotten. There is a real danger in remembering "bogeymen" in place of people when it comes to the horrors of the past. It is important to remember but also important to understand - and the latter is something that many, understandably I suppose, instinctual pull away from.

We must remember what happened, yes.

We must also remember how easy it was for normal people to be indoctrinated into regarding other humans as less than human.

We must also acknowledge that many people did many horrific things under order, in order to protect themselves and those around them.

We must acknowledge and remember these things because failing to do so edges us closer to believing that the same thing couldn't happen again, at any time, anywhere. That there was something inherently different about people in Nazi Germany that means it "couldn't happen now" or "couldn't be us or our governments".

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

One of those top comments puts it well saying he was 'Convicted for the crime of outliving those who actually committed the crimes'

100% agree with that statement too.

[Z]

This is a complex issue that I could debate endlessly... and never come to the same conclusion. He was there, on the right side of the fence. Regardless of his attitude or why he was there, whether he enjoyed it, whether he pulled a trigger or not; he knew what was going on there.

I've been to Sachsenhausen. We walked the route from the train station that any of the transported prisoners would have walked to the camp. The townspeople in Oranienburg feigned ignorance and said they had no idea what was going on in a camp that was on the edge of their town - it would have been impossible to not know. German guilt has translated into convictions for war crimes and while I think that's a good thing, the world at large can only lament that it took so long for them to start doing so.

While I think it's ultimately a bit fruitless to be prosecuting a 90-something Nazi bookkeeper for war crimes, I think it's symbolic of the fact that justice has eventually been dealt - it might not be much and it will certainly never be enough to make up for what happened but it's the best anyone can do at this stage and I'm sure that for anyone who lost someone they loved to the Nazi concentration camps, this is still an important conviction.

Yes, he was probably swept up in what he had to do to survive - it wasn't his fault personally that concentration camps came to be... but he was there. He was a witness, an accessory, a cog in a machine and he had to make the tough choice between surviving by any means or being killed himself. He made his choice and lived to be in his 90s. All choices have consequences.

[Kizzy]

If you are a member of the armed forces are you an accessory any more than the civilians, is it not true that not duped into believing what they did was for the greater good, everyone is conditioned by their respective leaders that what they do is against a malevolent force.
This man is a scapegoat, he followed orders as all servicemen and women and as at risk as anyone he processed. It's strange how things work, our war criminals get state funerals.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

If you are a member of the armed forces are you an accessory any more than the civilians, is it not true that not duped into believing what they did was for the greater good, everyone is conditioned by their respective leaders that what they do is against a malevolent force.
This man is a scapegoat, he followed orders as all servicemen and women and as at risk as anyone he processed. It's strange how things work, our war criminals get state funerals.

It should serve as a warning for everyone even our own troops today in the Middle East that even though they think they are just doing their job today they are infact murdering people at the request of their superiors and history might not be on their side in the future. Murder is Murder however you paint it.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Livia

Admin... he counted the money taken from Jews before they were gassed. You don't know that he didn't have a choice, that's just what you've chosen to believe. I don't think it's pointless, but maybe I have more invested in it that you?

And no, we shouldn't track down people and prosecute them for being Nazis, but if they were complicit in the annihilation of 6 million people because they were Jews, and not just Jews, gays, the disabled, gypsies... then yes, I want to see them punished.

No sympathy for the old bastard at all,he is old now and looks harmless,his deeds were abhorrent,and he needs punishing even if it is a bit lame.

[Samuel.]

Originally Posted by bobnot

It should serve as a warning for everyone even our own troops today in the Middle East that even though they think they are just doing their job today they are infact murdering people at the request of their superiors and history might not be on their side in the future. Murder is Murder however you paint it.

Very true.

They're viewed as a hero now but who knows what in 50 years time, could be facing a similar fate.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Samuel.

Very true.

They're viewed as a hero now but who knows what in 50 years time, could be facing a similar fate.

A similar fate? You think our troops are building concentration camps? When my husband served in Afghanistan the only thing he participated in building was a school. The Taliban bombed it twice and they built it back up again. Everything the British Army does is in line with the Geneva Convention The UN Charter on War and other laws. If they're broken the troops are brought to account. You either have a deep misunderstanding of the Nazis or of the British Army, or both.

[the truth]

That's all true Livia, however blairs illegal bombing which killed a million innocent people is one of the worst atrocities in human history and should be viewed as such. Blair and bush should be treated as war criminals and brought before the international criminal court in the hague. These pathetic multi million pound 10 year whitewash investigations are an insult

[Samuel.]

Originally Posted by Livia

A similar fate? You think our troops are building concentration camps? When my husband served in Afghanistan the only thing he participated in building was a school. The Taliban bombed it twice and they built it back up again. Everything the British Army does is in line with the Geneva Convention The UN Charter on War and other laws. If they're broken the troops are brought to account. You either have a deep misunderstanding of the Nazis or of the British Army, or both.

A similar fate I said, not a similar crime. Not from our perspective at least.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

A similar fate? You think our troops are building concentration camps? When my husband served in Afghanistan the only thing he participated in building was a school. The Taliban bombed it twice and they built it back up again. Everything the British Army does is in line with the Geneva Convention The UN Charter on War and other laws. If they're broken the troops are brought to account. You either have a deep misunderstanding of the Nazis or of the British Army, or both.

Is Tony Blair not accused of starting an illegal war in Iraq?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is Tony Blair not accused of starting an illegal war in Iraq?

Yes, Tony Blair. That's a whole different thread.

[user104658]

To be pragmatic, though, there is no difference between the pilots who dropped bombs under orders in Bush and Blair's illegal war and the German soldiers who invaded the bulk of Europe in WW2.

I can, however, appreciate that there is a difference between the actions of a boots-on-the-ground soldier and an officer in a prison camp, so whilst it would be fair to compare the British armed forces to the general German army in WW2, you can't really compare them to the man that this thread is about.

[bots]

Some people seem to have a strange perception over what is legal and what is not. It is not illegal to bomb another country and Blair did get parliaments approval for taking the action. He did not authorise or participate in war crimes.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes, Tony Blair. That's a whole different thread.

Not at all, he was PM and he allegedly started a war without any of the safeguards in place you mentioned, how was that possible?

[bots]

The focus of the issue is this. If someone is an accomplice in breaking peoples fundamental human rights, it is a personal responsibility that cannot be passed on to a more senior ranking person. The same principles apply now in many walks of life. If the person was coerced into doing it, then of course it puts a different slant on it, but that's what courts are there for.

I don't think there is any suggestion that there is any impropriety in the court coming to its conclusion, and the accused does still have the right to appeal, so in my opinion, whatever the final conclusion is, it will be the correct judgement.

[Kizzy]

''So few of those responsible for the genocide of Europe’s Jews have been held to account in postwar Germany that the German writer and Holocaust survivor Ralph Giordano described it as a “second guilt”.
But in 2011 a German court found John Demjanjuk, a Soviet prisoner-of-war who volunteered as an SS guard, guilty of being an accessory to the murder of 27,900 Jews at the Sobibor extermination camp.
When Thomas Walther, a government official tasked with investigating Nazi crimes, sought to bring charges against Demjanjuk, his colleagues laughed.
But the case overturned years of legal precedent in the German courts that only the senior Nazi leadership could be held responsible for the crimes of the Holocaust. For the first time, anyone who had been a guard at a death camp could be held guilty.''

So it seems that Germany only decided to try any SS officer from 2011, wonder what prompted the change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...to-murder.html

[Z]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

''So few of those responsible for the genocide of Europe’s Jews have been held to account in postwar Germany that the German writer and Holocaust survivor Ralph Giordano described it as a “second guilt”.
But in 2011 a German court found John Demjanjuk, a Soviet prisoner-of-war who volunteered as an SS guard, guilty of being an accessory to the murder of 27,900 Jews at the Sobibor extermination camp.
When Thomas Walther, a government official tasked with investigating Nazi crimes, sought to bring charges against Demjanjuk, his colleagues laughed.
But the case overturned years of legal precedent in the German courts that only the senior Nazi leadership could be held responsible for the crimes of the Holocaust. For the first time, anyone who had been a guard at a death camp could be held guilty.''

So it seems that Germany only decided to try any SS officer from 2011, wonder what prompted the change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...to-murder.html

Because time marches on and the millions of people who lost their families to the genocide carried out by the Nazi regime deserve justice, even if it's down to the dregs of the Nazi party. There is a difference between what the Nazis did to Jews, gays, gypsies, the disabled and anyone else they saw fit to put into their government sanctioned slaughter houses; and what happens in the usual horrors of war. This was something extraordinary in the literal meaning of the word - the world had never seen anything quite like it and I hope will never see it again... I'd hope that the same justice would be dished out to any perpetrators in the Rwandan genocide or if/when the North Korean regime falls and the extent of what happens in the gulags over there ever comes to light... but what we have is a German government that has accepted the burden of the past and done its best to try and right the few wrongs they are able to... nothing will change what happened, nothing will change that this particular man went on to lead a full life afterwards... the past cannot be undone, but the future can still be written. Well done to the German legal system for pursuing this line of action - it'll be controversial long after this man dies and the last of those who can remember World War II are gone but at least it was something.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Z

Because time marches on and the millions of people who lost their families to the genocide carried out by the Nazi regime deserve justice, even if it's down to the dregs of the Nazi party. There is a difference between what the Nazis did to Jews, gays, gypsies, the disabled and anyone else they saw fit to put into their government sanctioned slaughter houses; and what happens in the usual horrors of war. This was something extraordinary in the literal meaning of the word - the world had never seen anything quite like it and I hope will never see it again... I'd hope that the same justice would be dished out to any perpetrators in the Rwandan genocide or if/when the North Korean regime falls and the extent of what happens in the gulags over there ever comes to light... but what we have is a German government that has accepted the burden of the past and done its best to try and right the few wrongs they are able to... nothing will change what happened, nothing will change that this particular man went on to lead a full life afterwards... the past cannot be undone, but the future can still be written. Well done to the German legal system for pursuing this line of action - it'll be controversial long after this man dies and the last of those who can remember World War II are gone but at least it was something.

There's a difference between justice and vengeance.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not at all, he was PM and he allegedly started a war without any of the safeguards in place you mentioned, how was that possible?

Because he lied about weapons of mass destruction, went so far as to "sex up" a document in order to get Parliament to give him to go ahead. Which they did. It wasn't that long ago, I'm surprised you don't remember it. And it's got little to do with this debate.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's a difference between justice and vengeance.

There is a difference. Justice happens in a court of law.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Z

Because time marches on and the millions of people who lost their families to the genocide carried out by the Nazi regime deserve justice, even if it's down to the dregs of the Nazi party. There is a difference between what the Nazis did to Jews, gays, gypsies, the disabled and anyone else they saw fit to put into their government sanctioned slaughter houses; and what happens in the usual horrors of war. This was something extraordinary in the literal meaning of the word - the world had never seen anything quite like it and I hope will never see it again... I'd hope that the same justice would be dished out to any perpetrators in the Rwandan genocide or if/when the North Korean regime falls and the extent of what happens in the gulags over there ever comes to light... but what we have is a German government that has accepted the burden of the past and done its best to try and right the few wrongs they are able to... nothing will change what happened, nothing will change that this particular man went on to lead a full life afterwards... the past cannot be undone, but the future can still be written. Well done to the German legal system for pursuing this line of action - it'll be controversial long after this man dies and the last of those who can remember World War II are gone but at least it was something.

Poland since the war have managed to prosecute 700, this was ensuring there were nobody of any real importance left as a scapegoat for the atrocity. This isn't justice frankly it could never be, all this is is too little too late.

Originally Posted by Livia

Because he lied about weapons of mass destruction, went so far as to "sex up" a document in order to get Parliament to give him to go ahead. Which they did. It wasn't that long ago, I'm surprised you don't remember it. And it's got little to do with this debate.

It wouldn't take much to confuse parliament would it, Did he also bamboozle the Geneva convention and NATO that he ticked all the boxes on the UN charter?
It has everything to do with the debate, it goes to show when a power is hellbent on a course of action little gets in the way.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

There is a difference. Justice happens in a court of law.

Not always, and not exclusively.

[lostalex]

a sentence well deserved, but he should feel truly lucky he got to enjoy the best years of his life free. but he should never be free again.

[Z]

Too little, yes; too late, no. It's a symbolic measure. Everyone can see that. Nothing will repent for what happened but this is better than doing nothing and holding hands up and going . This is justice. Vengeance would be capital punishment.

[Kizzy]

I can't see it, wait until there only not even as many as the fingers on one hand and they are less than a couple of years from death anyway? It's an insult.