fordy Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I read this morning that a 93 year old is going to be tried for 'War Crimes' in Auschwitz. Anybody got any views on this. Obviously I'm not condoning his actions, But is it worth taking a 93 year old through a trial at his age ? Let's be honest, what are they going to do to him if found guilty? Jail him for the rest of his life ? I realize there should be no time limit on these horrific crimes, but as I've already said, 93 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I read this morning that a 93 year old is going to be tried for 'War Crimes' in Auschwitz. Anybody got any views on this. Obviously I'm not condoning his actions, But is it worth taking a 93 year old through a trial at his age ? Let's be honest, what are they going to do to him if found guilty? Jail him for the rest of his life ? I realize there should be no time limit on these horrific crimes, but as I've already said, 93 ? Yes, he sorted the money from the Jews to send back to Berlin. He stood on the ramps as they herded children into ovens. Age is no bar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 If he's mentally able to stand trial then he should be tried. My only issue with this and other alleged crimes that are only brought to court decades later is how can you properly defend yourself decades after the fact? Slightly different here as there's probably documentary evidence placing him in one place or another. But could you accurately say what you did 20-40 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcap Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 If it means Blair will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life then I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 If he's mentally able to stand trial then he should be tried. My only issue with this and other alleged crimes that are only brought to court decades later is how can you properly defend yourself decades after the fact? Slightly different here as there's probably documentary evidence placing him in one place or another. But could you accurately say what you did 20-40 years ago? Having watched many documentaries about WWII and on these listened to eye witness accounts by veterans of their actions in battle, I think that having experienced something as cataclysmic as this, it would be burned into your memory. If one was at Auschwitz and was party to the treatment of human beings like they were, you will remember. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Vallance Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Guilt doesn't diminish with age. I'm just not sure how it tallies with Greville Janner, who pusued Nazi war criminals with a passion for decades escapes trial due to age / dementia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 It's not just about this guy. There needs to be a message that if you commit this type of crime, the consequences, responsibility and vilification from normal society follow you to the grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 If it means Blair will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life then I'm all for it. Dunno if you're joking but to compare what Blair has done with men who willingly killed off millions of Jews and other "############" is poor stuff. As for the trial, yes. The message needs to be sent out that you will be pursued to the ends of the earth and the end of your life for such crimes. As someone said above, it will be difficult for him to defend himself or otherwise but I am sure there will be strong evidence linking him to the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Having watched many documentaries about WWII and on these listened to eye witness accounts by veterans of their actions in battle, I think that having experienced something as cataclysmic as this, it would be burned into your memory. If one was at Auschwitz and was party to the treatment of human beings like they were, you will remember. IMO. I think you're probably right in this (another Nazi trials), Boris. It was more a general comment about trials decades after alleged crimes have taken place. They have a statute of limitations in USA & I think we should consider it here too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcap Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Dunno if you're joking but to compare what Blair has done with men who willingly killed off millions of Jews and other "############" is poor stuff. As for the trial, yes. The message needs to be sent out that you will be pursued to the ends of the earth and the end of your life for such crimes. As someone said above, it will be difficult for him to defend himself or otherwise but I am sure there will be strong evidence linking him to the site. Not be on the same scale granted, but sending a country to an illegal war on false pretences, knowing women and children would die in there thousands, doesn't a good person make. He's a war criminal. His hands are awash with blood, which he has made huge personal financial gains from. I want him in the dock along with any other war criminal from any generation, and if convicting a 93 year old for world war 2 stuff means Blair might just get his comeuppance, 30, 40 years from now, then I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I think you're probably right in this (another Nazi trials), Boris. It was more a general comment about trials decades after alleged crimes have taken place. They have a statute of limitations in USA & I think we should consider it here too. I don't disagree with a statute of limitations for certain offences. Being mixed up in genocide is one that shouldn't really be time barred, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poultry Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I read this morning that a 93 year old is going to be tried for 'War Crimes' in Auschwitz. Anybody got any views on this. Obviously I'm not condoning his actions, But is it worth taking a 93 year old through a trial at his age ? Let's be honest, what are they going to do to him if found guilty? Jail him for the rest of his life ? I realize there should be no time limit on these horrific crimes, but as I've already said, 93 ? Yes i think he must be put on trial. Age has no relevance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Just a thought, see the pilots that dropped the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, war ciminals or not?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Just a thought, see the pilots that dropped the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, war ciminals or not?. Not. Any bomber pilot/crew could, by that definition, be tried as a war criminal then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Not. Any bomber pilot/crew could, by that definition, be tried as a war criminal then. Just like any soldier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Just a thought, see the pilots that dropped the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, war ciminals or not?. If anyone was to be convicted in these situations it would have to be the general who ordered the strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 If anyone was to be convicted in these situations it would have to be the general who ordered the strike.Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Just like any soldier? Soldiers shoot soldiers. Bombers killed civilians. That's the main difference I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 If anyone was to be convicted in these situations it would have to be the general who ordered the strike. Nuremberg defence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Nuremberg defence?What happened to soldiers back then if they refused an order?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Nuremberg defence? Yep. Boils down to personal opinion I suppose to what extent it should be applied. Do you think German soldiers who followed orders in Auschwitz, for example, should be/have been prosecuted to the same degree as their superiors? What rank was the guy in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Dunno if you're joking but to compare what Blair has done with men who willingly killed off millions of Jews and other "############" is poor stuff. As for the trial, yes. The message needs to be sent out that you will be pursued to the ends of the earth and the end of your life for such crimes. As someone said above, it will be difficult for him to defend himself or otherwise but I am sure there will be strong evidence linking him to the site. To be fair, him and his buddie George W are responsible for carpet bombing one of the most advanced countries in the Arab world, back into the stone age. The fact they entered into that conflict under false pretences is pretty appalling. Blair is partly responsible for thousands of deaths brought about by an illegal war as well as the countless deaths since he helped to destabilize the region. So in answer to your question, he's probably worse than the person in question. I doubt that old ***** was solely responsible for millions of deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Yep. Boils down to personal opinion I suppose to what extent it should be applied. Do you think German soldiers who followed orders in Auschwitz, for example, should be/have been prosecuted to the same degree as their superiors? What rank was the guy in question? The guy has been really open about what he has done- on film and interview. He has stated that he thought the genocide was " the right thing" at the time He attributes it to "brain washing and propaganda" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 The guy has been really open about what he has done- on film and interview. He has stated that he thought the genocide was " the right thing" at the time He attributes it to "brain washing and propaganda" Jeez. What rank was he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 The guy has been really open about what he has done- on film and interview. He has stated that he thought the genocide was " the right thing" at the time He attributes it to "brain washing and propaganda" Horrendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Jeez. What rank was he? I don't know, but he was known as " the book keeper" He volunteered to join the SS as he wanted to join a Nazi elite unit. He has been known about for years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 The guy has been really open about what he has done- on film and interview. He has stated that he thought the genocide was " the right thing" at the time He attributes it to "brain washing and propaganda" I don't know, but he was known as " the book keeper" He volunteered to join the SS as he wanted to join a Nazi elite unit. He has been known about for years I didn't realise this. Nationalism is a dangerous beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 It seems sad to be putting a 93 year old through a trial, but not to me. The Nazi's done horrendous things in the prison camps to Jews, Eastern Europeans and others, its not a case of punishing now, its a case of letting anyone else who contemplates such barbarity to know that you may escape, but you will be hunted for the rest of your life, so when you go to bed, keep one eye open, because just like you did we are coming to get you. I saw the camps when they were liberated on the News, I also saw on the News the arrogance and non compassion of the guards who were arrested. They were disgusting people. With regard to the atom bombs on Japan, they were a means to an end, and were not aimed on the gentle, business people we know today, they were aimed to demoralise and end a Country that was also controlled by beasts who had no respect for human life, and no bounds to the cruelty they inflicted. Its like people now are disgusted at the Allied bombings of Dresden, but accept the blitz, the indiscriminate bombing of places like Coventry and even Glasgow. What is the saying "ye shall reap what ye sew." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I didn't realise this. Nationalism is a dangerous beast. Nationalism, when used to instill superiority in one over another, is disgusting, and when mixed with racial arguments it is abhorrent. However, one can retain a degree of national sentiment without wishing to conquer or subjugate or oppress anyone else. In an era of globalisation, instead of the bland genericism we see everyday, it's nice to see the cultures of other nations as it makes the World that wee bit more colourful. It's not about saying, we are better than you, rather, here is what we have, what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordy Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 Some very interesting answers. I think Bob has hit the nail on the head re a warning to others that they will be hunted for the rest of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Jeez. What rank was he? From what I read earlier, If he's to be believed he was a nobody to be honest, claimed to have basically been more admin staff and a witness rather than a guard. Coming forward when no one knew he was could add some credit to his story but if nothing else apart from complaining about the way the manner of the killing rather than the act he didn't really do much to prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodemac Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 If it means Blair will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life then I'm all for it. you forgot about the idiot from Texas, he should be first in line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest C00l K1d Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 It seems sad to be putting a 93 year old through a trial, but not to me. The Nazi's done horrendous things in the prison camps to Jews, Eastern Europeans and others, its not a case of punishing now, its a case of letting anyone else who contemplates such barbarity to know that you may escape, but you will be hunted for the rest of your life, so when you go to bed, keep one eye open, because just like you did we are coming to get you. I saw the camps when they were liberated on the News, I also saw on the News the arrogance and non compassion of the guards who were arrested. They were disgusting people. With regard to the atom bombs on Japan, they were a means to an end, and were not aimed on the gentle, business people we know today, they were aimed to demoralise and end a Country that was also controlled by beasts who had no respect for human life, and no bounds to the cruelty they inflicted. Its like people now are disgusted at the Allied bombings of Dresden, but accept the blitz, the indiscriminate bombing of places like Coventry and even Glasgow. What is the saying "ye shall reap what ye sew." Were the innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "beasts who had no respect for human life?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Were the innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "beasts who had no respect for human life?" No, but it prevented a protracted,bloody ground war and sea invasion of mainland Japan against fanatical opponents. It could have been a fore runner of a Vietnam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Were the innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "beasts who had no respect for human life?" No the innocent civilians were not beasts, they, as were all the victims of bombing raids on both sides innocent victims. That is the tragedy of air power it changed the concept of war between two conflicting armies in the field to an ability to weaken the enemies ability to fight by victimising the civilians into a mood of pleading for an end. Show me any indication in WW2 that any of the participants took into consideration the plight of the citizenry of the opposition. Having spent a considerable time of my very young formative life sitting in the bathroom of a ground floor tenement in Edinburgh whilst German bombers, with their stuttering engines proceeded overhead to bomb the innocent citizens of Glasgow, I have empathy but no compassion for those who suffered on the other side. The problem with Hiroshima was that it was a new devastating weapon that shocked all. The people in China who were shot, bayoneted, and killed cruelly were no less dead than those killed by an atomic bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 It is an interesting case. If he was indeed an admin worker who witnessed things but didn't directly participate should he be tried the same way as someone who took part? He claims to have asked for a transfer out of there several times, a camp he was only stationed at for 2 months. Admittedly 2 months when around 300,000 people died. People could say that he should have spoken out and done something but in all honesty how many people would have? Seeing the inhumanity of the people involved sure as hell wouldn't have made me want to say anything to rock the boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 He should be tried. I'll say this though. If it was me back then and knowing what happened to people who spoke out, I'm ashamed to say I'd probably have said **** all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcap Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Not sure how you can justify the killing of one set of innocent civilian women and children and not the other.You can't say the holocaust was evil and that the atomic bombings weren't. One was just on a much larger scale.In Iraq and Afghanistan we would bomb a house that contained an enemy commander even when we knew he had his kids in the house with him. Collateral damage for a political cause. Yet if the attempted to bomb an army patrol and kill some civilians, it would be classed as evil? Completely lacks logic really.The point I'm making, is that it's either all fair in love and war or everyone should come under the moral radar. Can't pick and choose when to apply the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Not sure how you can justify the killing of one set of innocent civilian women and children and not the other. You can't say the holocaust was evil and that the atomic bombings weren't. One was just on a much larger scale. In Iraq and Afghanistan we would bomb a house that contained an enemy commander even when we knew he had his kids in the house with him. Collateral damage for a political cause. Yet if the attempted to bomb an army patrol and kill some civilians, it would be classed as evil? Completely lacks logic really. The point I'm making, is that it's either all fair in love and war or everyone should come under the moral radar. Can't pick and choose when to apply the rules. A difference between collateral damage and the systematic eradication of human beings based on their ethnic, religious or political affiliation, surely? No, the A-bombs weren't evil because it saved the lives of allied servicemen. Horrific, yes, but then war is horrific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcap Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 A difference between collateral damage and the systematic eradication of human beings based on their ethnic, religious or political affiliation, surely? No, the A-bombs weren't evil because it saved the lives of allied servicemen. Horrific, yes, but then war is horrific. So killing women and children can easily be justified as collateral damage? So killing two cities full of woman and childen(most of the men would have been away on service) isn't evil because it saved the lives the lives of mostly willing male combatants? Rather skewed logic. I agree war is horrific, but you can't go judging what is evil and not based on who won. All sides do evil things during war or no sides do evil things during war. The holocaust was no less evil than the atomic bombings, they were just on different scales. The mass killing of women and children is evil, no matter how you try and justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 It is an interesting case. If he was indeed an admin worker who witnessed things but didn't directly participate should he be tried the same way as someone who took part? He claims to have asked for a transfer out of there several times, a camp he was only stationed at for 2 months. Admittedly 2 months when around 300,000 people died. People could say that he should have spoken out and done something but in all honesty how many people would have? Seeing the inhumanity of the people involved sure as hell wouldn't have made me want to say anything to rock the boat. Agree with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I read this morning that a 93 year old is going to be tried for 'War Crimes' in Auschwitz. Anybody got any views on this. Obviously I'm not condoning his actions, But is it worth taking a 93 year old through a trial at his age ? Let's be honest, what are they going to do to him if found guilty? Jail him for the rest of his life ? I realize there should be no time limit on these horrific crimes, but as I've already said, 93 ? If he's found guilty, it's a stain on his reputation forever and quite rightly so. Like that lord who's dodging charges for child abuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Not sure how you can justify the killing of one set of innocent civilian women and children and not the other. You can't say the holocaust was evil and that the atomic bombings weren't. One was just on a much larger scale. In Iraq and Afghanistan we would bomb a house that contained an enemy commander even when we knew he had his kids in the house with him. Collateral damage for a political cause. Yet if the attempted to bomb an army patrol and kill some civilians, it would be classed as evil? Completely lacks logic really. The point I'm making, is that it's either all fair in love and war or everyone should come under the moral radar. Can't pick and choose when to apply the rules. I don't think any of us disagree with your sentiments, but the system of war changed, probably to the greatest degree in WW1. Germany probably started it with the Zeppelin raids of England, again it was a deliberate attack on the civilian population. It became by all with an air force common practise to attack both deliberately and collaterally civilian targets. Like it or not that is the way conflict is conducted now. Of course its inhumane, but it has to be done. The Holocaust the true subject of the thread was whether we like it or not horrific in its cruelty and its motivation which was to totally anihillate people of non acceptable to the Nazi party by race color or creed, and the methods used were just barbaric. The man subject of the Trial was a part of this, and the fact that he is was primarily due to the efforts of Wiesenthal who worked toward revenge when most of the others had conveniently forgot. Israel as it became ctronger militarily, and politically, also stepped in and retribution started. I watched a camp survivor interviewed yesterday, her attitude is, he must be Tried, he will be fiound guilty, and that is enough for her, he must just at his age know that what he was part of was wrong and the point must be made. I may be biased , but not naive, I am sure b oth sides done bad things, but I am reasonably certain in saying that the Allies did not treat their prisoners, or their conquered enemy in the way that both the Nazi's and Japanese did. You will note that I am very careful in using the term Nazi when discussing the German participation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I may be biased , but not naive, I am sure b oth sides done bad things, but I am reasonably certain in saying that the Allies did not treat their prisoners, or their conquered enemy in the way that both the Nazi's and Japanese did. You will note that I am very careful in using the term Nazi when discussing the German participation. If we include the Russians in with the allies, I wouldn't be so sure about that last part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 If we include the Russians in with the allies, I wouldn't be so sure about that last part. Good point but again their ire was raised by Nazi behaviour when they were having success on the Russian front. Having said that the Russians done their reputation no favors when they invaded their Eastern European neighbours when they were part of the Nazi Coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bindy Badgy Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Just a thought, see the pilots that dropped the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, war ciminals or not?. If memory serves they weren't aware of what they were carrying. They knew it was a bomb but they didn't know what type of bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Good point but again their ire was raised by Nazi behaviour when they were having success on the Russian front. Having said that the Russians done their reputation no favors when they invaded their Eastern European neighbours when they were part of the Nazi Coalition. They had every right to be furious but the systematic rape of German civilians is still horrendous and shouldn't be forgotten. 12,500 people died in Sachsenhausen between 1945 and 1950. Per person interred, the rate of death was higher than when the Nazis ran it and in half the time. Of the 12,500 dead, the majority were kids or the elderly. These weren't the masterminds behind the Third Reich or soldiers who'd been at the Eastern Front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve444 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I read this morning that a 93 year old is going to be tried for 'War Crimes' in Auschwitz. Anybody got any views on this. Obviously I'm not condoning his actions, But is it worth taking a 93 year old through a trial at his age ? Let's be honest, what are they going to do to him if found guilty? Jail him for the rest of his life ? I realize there should be no time limit on these horrific crimes, but as I've already said, 93 ? He was the book-keeper at Auschwitz... Maybe we should chase down the people who were torturing British troops to death during WW2? That was Israelis BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 He was the book-keeper at Auschwitz... Maybe we should chase down the people who were torturing British troops to death during WW2? That was Israelis BTW We should definitely launch a ground assault on Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 If memory serves they weren't aware of what they were carrying. They knew it was a bomb but they didn't know what type of bomb. They new what it was. They had a special nuclear advisor with them to drop the bomb and the pilot had to practice escaping the blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.