What do you guys think of this change in policy to broaden prosecutions from those directly responsible to everyone involved?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/22/1-year-old-woman-charged-with-260000-counts-complicity-to-murder-in-auschwitz/
QuoteGerman woman, 91, charged in 260,000 Auschwitz deaths
Published September 22, 2015
German prosecutors have charged a 91-year-old woman with playing a role in the deaths of 260,000 Jews at the infamous Auschwitz death camp.
The unidentified woman, who authorities say served as member of the Nazi SS is accused of serving as a radio operator for the camp commandant from April to July 1944, The Times of Israel reports. During that time, huge numbers of Hungarian Jews were murdered in gas chambers.
Prosecutors argue that she can be charged as an accessory because she aided in the operation of the death camp. Heinz Doellel, a spokesman for the prosecutor, said there are no indications the woman is unfit for trial, though a court likely won't decide on whether to proceed with the case until next year.
The case is the latest in a series of attempts by Germany to bring surviving Holocaust perpetrators to justice. Only 50 of the 6,500 former SS members who served at Auschwitz have been convicted in Germany, as the courts long claimed only senior Nazi leadership could be held responsible for Holocaust crimes, The Telegraph reports.
Earlier this year, a 94-year-old man known as the "bookkeeper of Auschwitz" was incarcerated under similar circumstances. Prosecutors argued Oskar Groenig's presence when Jews entered the camp created a threatening impression, the BBC says.
Groenig admitted in a 2005 BBC documentary that he had been present on the ramp when selections for the gas chambers took place, and said during the trial he bears a share of the moral guilt for atrocities committed at the camp.
The former SS member was in charge of confiscating prisoners' luggage upon entry and deceiving them by saying their belongings would be returned. He would instead sort and count their money and ship it to Nazis in Berlin.
He was sentenced to four years in prison in connection with the murder of 300,000 people at the death camp. The judgment claims he "supported multiple murders, without providing support to specific individual acts," the BBC adds.
The decision marks a departure from the court's decades-old practice of requiring proof former SS members directly committed at least one crime in order to be convicted.
Some 1.1 million people, most of them European Jews, died between 1940 and 1945 at Auschwitz before it was liberated by Soviet forces.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
FFS with ll the useless threads you start, one would think you know how to create a thread title.
:bleeding:
Quote from: katmai on September 24, 2015, 01:49:16 AM
FFS with ll the useless threads you start, one would think you know how to create a thread title.
:bleeding:
Sorry. :blush:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 24, 2015, 01:40:55 AM
What do you guys think of this change in policy to broaden prosecutions from those directly responsible to everyone involved?
I think it's scapegoating, and thus shameful.
The people responsible are gone, but the feelings of national guilt remain. So these prosecutors must prosecute
somebody to assuage their own consciences over what their grandfathers did.
Did this woman's radio operations help bring about those deaths? I suppose they did. But then, so did the whole damn society. The Wehrmacht soldiers keeping the foreign soldiers from liberating the camps, the cops checking papers and detaining Jews, the narcs and informants, the engineers who kept the trains running, the Nazi party members providing moral support for the regime, etc.
If you want to put someone on trial do it right:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allmystery.de%2Fdateien%2F43048%2C1299107109%2C166254_175978642436493_100000730744685_432204_962217_n.jpg&hash=58f445a7bf7d8937775d817df4e31d5b00400b9a)
"Great outrage over crepy project: UFO-Sect wants to clone Hitler!"
(The small print says they want to clone him to put him on trial.)
I think this has gone too far. Might as well prosecute everybody who was an adult during 1941-1945. If you expand the guilt to those absurd levels, is there anybody in Germany who could claim innocence? If the radio operator deserves to be jailed, then what about the guys who made the radio? The delivery people who brought the radio to the camp? The guys who built the camp? Every German soldier who took part in the war?
Quote from: Monoriu on September 24, 2015, 03:04:05 AM
I think this has gone too far. Might as well prosecute everybody who was an adult during 1941-1945. If you expand the guilt to those absurd levels, is there anybody in Germany who could claim innocence? If the radio operator deserves to be jailed, then what about the guys who made the radio? The delivery people who brought the radio to the camp? The guys who built the camp? Every German soldier who took part in the war?
This is hardly a leap to "anybody in Germany" though. Slippery slope arguments suck and lead to wanton vandalism, rape and murder.
How much is she being charged per head?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 24, 2015, 01:40:55 AM
What do you guys think of this change in policy to broaden prosecutions from those directly responsible to everyone involved?
I think a good rule of thumb would be that anyone who worked, in any official capacity (not as a prisoner/forced worker) at a camp while people were being killed there could be held liable. Personally, I don't see any substantial difference between a camp guard and an officer operating a radio station at a camp.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 03:18:51 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 24, 2015, 01:40:55 AM
What do you guys think of this change in policy to broaden prosecutions from those directly responsible to everyone involved?
I think a good rule of thumb would be that anyone who worked, in any official capacity (not as a prisoner/forced worker) at a camp while people were being killed there could be held liable. Personally, I don't see any substantial difference between a camp guard and an officer operating a radio station at a camp.
:hmm:
The SS was a criminal organization. Members were thus criminals and liable for the crimes committed by the organization. I'd make an exception for those involuntarily drafted into the SS late in the war, but everyone else is liable. Fuck them. You should be able to imprison them just for being the kind of people who would join an organization like the SS.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2015, 06:18:42 AM
The SS was a criminal organization. Members were thus criminals and liable for the crimes committed by the organization. I'd make an exception for those involuntarily drafted into the SS late in the war, but everyone else is liable. Fuck them. You should be able to imprison them just for being the kind of people who would join an organization like the SS.
"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member" - not a problem, with me and the SS. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2015, 06:18:42 AM
The SS was a criminal organization. Members were thus criminals and liable for the crimes committed by the organization. I'd make an exception for those involuntarily drafted into the SS late in the war, but everyone else is liable. Fuck them. You should be able to imprison them just for being the kind of people who would join an organization like the SS.
And no moon landings? :(
Right, they never happened anyway.
I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2015, 06:18:42 AM
The SS was a criminal organization. Members were thus criminals and liable for the crimes committed by the organization. I'd make an exception for those involuntarily drafted into the SS late in the war, but everyone else is liable. Fuck them. You should be able to imprison them just for being the kind of people who would join an organization like the SS.
Notice the woman is not sentenced yet, she is just being put on trial. I am pretty confident Germany is a country with rule of law, so she is going to be able to argue all attenuating circumstances during the trial.
If found guilty I'd trust the German legal system to punish her appropriately.
To some extent they're playing 'catch-up' as in the late 50s and 60s they let some far more serious perpetrators of SS and Wehrmacht atrocities, go free.
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.
Nope, they plan to start those trials in the 2050s.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 24, 2015, 04:51:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.
Nope, they plan to start those trials in the 2050s.
:lol: Good German efficiency.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2015, 06:40:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 24, 2015, 04:51:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.
Nope, they plan to start those trials in the 2050s.
:lol: Good German efficiency.
They have to wait until most of them are dead and the survivors are in their 90s so they can have a handful of show trails to assuage the nations guilt, while not actually doing anything meaningful to bring justice to their victims.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 24, 2015, 06:48:18 PM
They have to wait until most of them are dead and the survivors are in their 90s so they can have a handful of show trails to assuage the nations guilt, while not actually doing anything meaningful to bring justice to their victims.
Well right now there are hundreds of thousands of people who were complicit to some extent with the Stasi so best to wait until they have stopped working, have retired, and most of them have died. Think of all the money that is saved.
What are the facts? What exactly were her roles? What did she know? What did she assist in? Are there extenuating circumstances? Inculpatory ones?
And how can anyone prejudge the case either way without knowing the answers?
There's a reason why they have trials. Cynics aside, it's not just a hollow ritual.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2015, 10:03:35 PM
What are the facts? What exactly were her roles? What did she know? What did she assist in? Are there extenuating circumstances? Inculpatory ones?
And how can anyone prejudge the case either way without knowing the answers?
There's a reason why they have trials. Cynics aside, it's not just a hollow ritual.
:yes: Hitler was innocent of any 1933-45 crimes since he didn't get a trial.
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.
What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.
Quote from: Martinus on September 25, 2015, 01:09:26 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.
What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.
Why even bother?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2015, 10:03:35 PM
What are the facts? What exactly were her roles? What did she know? What did she assist in? Are there extenuating circumstances? Inculpatory ones?
And how can anyone prejudge the case either way without knowing the answers?
There's a reason why they have trials. Cynics aside, it's not just a hollow ritual.
Actually I believe investigations can take place before a trial.
Quote from: Martinus on September 25, 2015, 01:09:26 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.
What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.
I'm confident that we can find something at least as bad as operating a radio.
Btw, if Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge (played by that hott actress in Der Untergang) wasn't put on trial (which I don't think she was) it seems weird to go after SS radio operators.
Quote from: The Brain on September 25, 2015, 02:33:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 25, 2015, 01:09:26 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.
What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.
I'm confident that we can find something at least as bad as operating a radio.
Btw, if Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge (played by that hott actress in Der Untergang) wasn't put on trial (which I don't think she was) it seems weird to go after SS radio operators.
Her crime is not "operating the radio". Her crime (for which she is still being put on trial so may be innocent) is "aiding and abetting genocide". I am not sure whether crimes of stasi (however horrid) actually qualify as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - in which case aiding and abetting their crimes would be subject to a statute of limitation and would not be punishable under a retroactive statute.
Quote from: Martinus on September 25, 2015, 02:38:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 25, 2015, 02:33:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 25, 2015, 01:09:26 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.
What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.
I'm confident that we can find something at least as bad as operating a radio.
Btw, if Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge (played by that hott actress in Der Untergang) wasn't put on trial (which I don't think she was) it seems weird to go after SS radio operators.
Her crime is not "operating the radio". Her crime (for which she is still being put on trial so may be innocent) is "aiding and abetting genocide". I am not sure whether crimes of stasi (however horrid) actually qualify as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - in which case aiding and abetting their crimes would be subject to a statute of limitation and would not be punishable under a retroactive statute.
I'm sure getting his orders typed up and distributed was no help at all to Hitler's genocides. :rolleyes:
Also, advocating retroactive legislation seems bizarre to me.
Edit: if no one is then disregard this.
Quote from: The Brain on September 25, 2015, 02:42:09 AM
Also, advocating retroactive legislation seems bizarre to me.
Edit: if no one is then disregard this.
It is generally accepted that certain crimes can be prosecuted even if they were not, technically, a crime under the national jurisdiction of the country where they were committed. This is what allowed for Nurnberg trials to happen, for example. But the list of such crimes is generally very short.
My assumption was that cooperating with the Stasi before 1989 was not a crime in Eastern Germany, so the only way it could be prosecuted is if it falls within the narrow group of the crimes that can be prosecuted as described in the first paragraph.
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2015, 12:06:44 PM
And no moon landings? :(
Right, they never happened anyway.
No, there were no SS moon landings. That was just a movie.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2015, 10:03:35 PM
What are the facts? What exactly were her roles? What did she know? What did she assist in? Are there extenuating circumstances? Inculpatory ones?
And how can anyone prejudge the case either way without knowing the answers?
There's a reason why they have trials. Cynics aside, it's not just a hollow ritual.
Quote" In cases where a group or organisation is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organisation is considered proved and shall not be questioned."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp)
QuoteConclusions: The SS was utilised for the purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labour programme and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war. The defendant Kaltenbrunner was a member of the SS implicated in these activities. In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS. The Tribunal does not include the so-called SS riding units. The Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsfuehrer SS (commonly known as the SD) is dealt with in the Tribunal's Judgment on the Gestapo and SD.
Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organisation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter or who were personally implicated as members of the organisation in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes. The basis of this finding is the participation of the organisation in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to belong to the organisations enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1st September, 1939.
Seems pretty open-and-shut to me. I cannot imagine there could exist evidence that
(1) she didn't know she was in the SS
(2) she didn't know that people were being killed at Auschwitz, or
(3) in the absence of the above, that it was still okay for her to belong to the SS and help kill people.
I suppose she could turn out to have been pretending to belong to the SS as part of some spy network for the Allies, and thus get the benefit of condition (3) above. It seems to me that it is unlikely that she wouldn't have said so before now, though.
She could pretend she was coerced into joining the SS by her family/husband/government/whatever. Doubtful it would work, but as a non lawyer, it's pretty much the only defense I can think of for this case.
Quote from: viper37 on September 25, 2015, 10:13:40 AM
She could pretend she was coerced into joining the SS by her family/husband/government/whatever. Doubtful it would work, but as a non lawyer, it's pretty much the only defense I can think of for this case.
Yes, once you've retroactively declared membership in the SS to be a crime, she's guilty of that.
If I read the part bolded by grumbler right, conditions 1 and 2 are cumulative.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2015, 06:26:14 AM
Seems pretty open-and-shut to me.
Against Ernst Kaltenbrunner sure.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2015, 02:18:21 AM
Actually I believe investigations can take place before a trial.
And who among the commenters here are privy to the results of the investigation of this unnamed person?
No one. But then I didn't realize that we could comment or speculate here without having all the facts.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2015, 03:42:06 PM
No one. But then I didn't realize that we could comment or speculate here without having all the facts.
You don't need all the facts.
But it would be nice to have a least one.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2015, 03:46:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2015, 03:42:06 PM
No one. But then I didn't realize that we could comment or speculate here without having all the facts.
You don't need all the facts.
But it would be nice to have a least one.
"a 91-year-old woman [has been charged] with playing a role in the deaths of 260,000 Jews at the infamous Auschwitz death camp."
:smarty:
Quote from: The Brain on September 25, 2015, 02:33:32 AM
Btw, if Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge (played by that hott actress in Der Untergang) wasn't put on trial (which I don't think she was) it seems weird to go after SS radio operators.
Oh, but Junge "didn't know what was going on". :sleep:
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2015, 06:26:14 AM
Seems pretty open-and-shut to me. I cannot imagine there could exist evidence that
(1) she didn't know she was in the SS
(2) she didn't know that people were being killed at Auschwitz, or
(3) in the absence of the above, that it was still okay for her to belong to the SS and help kill people.
I suppose she could turn out to have been pretending to belong to the SS as part of some spy network for the Allies, and thus get the benefit of condition (3) above. It seems to me that it is unlikely that she wouldn't have said so before now, though.
She could also argue that she didn't realize the SS was a criminal organization when she joined, and thus lacked mens rea. She could argue she was coerced into staying (probably not too hard, I assume you couldn't just quit the SS), and her actions in the SS did not directly tie into criminal activity.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 26, 2015, 08:18:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2015, 06:26:14 AM
Seems pretty open-and-shut to me. I cannot imagine there could exist evidence that
(1) she didn't know she was in the SS
(2) she didn't know that people were being killed at Auschwitz, or
(3) in the absence of the above, that it was still okay for her to belong to the SS and help kill people.
I suppose she could turn out to have been pretending to belong to the SS as part of some spy network for the Allies, and thus get the benefit of condition (3) above. It seems to me that it is unlikely that she wouldn't have said so before now, though.
She could also argue that she didn't realize the SS was a criminal organization when she joined, and thus lacked mens rea. She could argue she was coerced into staying (probably not too hard, I assume you couldn't just quit the SS), and her actions in the SS did not directly tie into criminal activity.
That last part is irrelevant. I suppose the other two parts would be difficult to prove.
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 26, 2015, 08:18:32 AM
She could also argue that she didn't realize the SS was a criminal organization when she joined, and thus lacked mens rea. She could argue she was coerced into staying (probably not too hard, I assume you couldn't just quit the SS), and her actions in the SS did not directly tie into criminal activity.
That last part is irrelevant. I suppose the other two parts would be difficult to prove.
The first part would be very easy to prove, but it would be irrelevant:
QuoteIn cases where a group or organisation is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organisation is considered proved and shall not be questioned.
Now, that wouldn't pass constitutional muster in the US, because it's clearly
ex post facto, but she's not being tried in the States.
Quote from: dps on September 26, 2015, 05:55:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 26, 2015, 08:18:32 AM
She could also argue that she didn't realize the SS was a criminal organization when she joined, and thus lacked mens rea. She could argue she was coerced into staying (probably not too hard, I assume you couldn't just quit the SS), and her actions in the SS did not directly tie into criminal activity.
That last part is irrelevant. I suppose the other two parts would be difficult to prove.
The first part would be very easy to prove, but it would be irrelevant:
QuoteIn cases where a group or organisation is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organisation is considered proved and shall not be questioned.
Now, that wouldn't pass constitutional muster in the US, because it's clearly ex post facto, but she's not being tried in the States.
No--if the mens rea concept is necessary, and I have no idea but assume it is, a person has to act with a guilty intent. To the extent that joining the SS is a crime as it is a criminal organization, she had to understand that it was engaged in criminal activity at the time she joined. The defense that she didn't understand would be different than arguing that arguing that the SS was not a criminal organization.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 26, 2015, 07:37:22 PM
Quote from: dps on September 26, 2015, 05:55:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 26, 2015, 08:18:32 AM
She could also argue that she didn't realize the SS was a criminal organization when she joined, and thus lacked mens rea. She could argue she was coerced into staying (probably not too hard, I assume you couldn't just quit the SS), and her actions in the SS did not directly tie into criminal activity.
That last part is irrelevant. I suppose the other two parts would be difficult to prove.
The first part would be very easy to prove, but it would be irrelevant:
QuoteIn cases where a group or organisation is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organisation is considered proved and shall not be questioned.
Now, that wouldn't pass constitutional muster in the US, because it's clearly ex post facto, but she's not being tried in the States.
No--if the mens rea concept is necessary, and I have no idea but assume it is, a person has to act with a guilty intent. To the extent that joining the SS is a crime as it is a criminal organization, she had to understand that it was engaged in criminal activity at the time she joined. The defense that she didn't understand would be different than arguing that arguing that the SS was not a criminal organization.
Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but in the case of the SS, how could anyone have known that they were joining a criminal organization when it hadn't been declared to be such?
Quote from: dps on September 26, 2015, 07:55:20 PM
Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but in the case of the SS, how could anyone have known that they were joining a criminal organization when it hadn't been declared to be such?
If you had a sense of what the SS was up to, then you should have understood it was a criminal organization, even if it wasn't formally declared as such.
Murder obviously was a crime in Germany between 1933 and 1945, so it is fairly easy to prosecute people for that. Doesn't matter if they were in the SS or whether the SS was a criminal organisation. Membership in a criminal organization would also fall under the statute of limitations,whereas murder does not and can be prosecuted 70 years later as well.
Quote from: dps on September 26, 2015, 05:55:40 PM
Now, that wouldn't pass constitutional muster in the US, because it's clearly ex post facto, but she's not being tried in the States.
I've never heard about anyone being prosecuted for exclusively membership in the SS in West Germany by German courts so the Allies declaring the SS a criminal organization is meaningless under German law. The SS and other organizations like the NSDAP are considered anti-constitutional though and you may not use their symbols.
FWIW, mens rea is not limited to "intent"; it usually encompasses "knowledge," and often "recklessness" or "gross negligence" (or for a particular misdemeanor in NSDAP-Vermont, sometimes even simple/civil-law negligence :rolleyes: :rollingeyesoutofhead:).
Quote from: Zanza on September 27, 2015, 01:58:32 AM
Murder obviously was a crime in Germany between 1933 and 1945, so it is fairly easy to prosecute people for that.
I'm not sure. The great jurist Carl Schmitt (who I think is one of the most profound political thinkers of the 20th century) infamously provided the foundation for the legality of the "Night of the Long Knives" killings -- after the fact, of course -- by virtue of the
Führerprinzip. To identify those killings as murders, i.e. criminal killings, is to declare "criminal" the entire authority of the German government of 1934. Which fundamentally brings us back where we started...
The opinion of a Nazi apologist doesn't count for much in Germany after 1945. He might have been a brilliant thinker in the 1920s, but after the Enabling Act, he was just another Nazi stooge.
My personal admiration for the work of Schmitt (and Heidegger and Fallada) aside, "murder" has no inherent meaning apart from a social- and state-ordained code of legality. The "Shooting Gallery" thread is a good contemporary example. The same Nazi apparatus that rendered the Final Solution legal also imposed six-month prison sentences on Bulgarian hash dealers.
Quote from: Zanza on September 27, 2015, 04:27:51 AM
The opinion of a Nazi apologist doesn't count for much in Germany after 1945. He might have been a brilliant thinker in the 1920s, but after the Enabling Act, he was just another Nazi stooge.
Judging by the short sentences and early releases of numerous high ranking Nazis and the reticence in prosecuting Nazis by the German government from the 1950's on, I think the opinion of Nazi apologists counted for quite a lot. If it didn't, these people would have been prosecuted in 1955 rather then 2015.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2015, 06:49:37 PM
Judging by the short sentences and early releases of numerous high ranking Nazis and the reticence in prosecuting Nazis by the German government from the 1950's on, I think the opinion of Nazi apologists counted for quite a lot. If it didn't, these people would have been prosecuted in 1955 rather then 2015.
If they prosecuted all the Nazis in 1955 society would not have been able to function. The US was very complicit in making sure de-Nazifying did not get taken to stupid proportions since we needed West Germany. When the majority of society was complicit what are you going to do? Same deal with the Stasi in East Germany.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2015, 04:32:51 PM
"a 91-year-old woman [has been charged] with playing a role in the deaths of 260,000 Jews at the infamous Auschwitz death camp."
:smarty:
Accusations are not facts.
These ancient people they go after, it seems weird to me that the government didn't know they were in the SS/whatever. I get the impression that at least in some cases the government knew they were SS for many years before prosecuting. NB I could be completely wrong. To me it seems unsound for government to be able to withhold prosecution indefinitely and keep it over people all Damoclean and shit. Speaking of which, or get off the pot.
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2015, 09:49:08 AM
These ancient people they go after, it seems weird to me that the government didn't know they were in the SS/whatever.
Don't ask, don't tell.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 28, 2015, 09:31:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2015, 04:32:51 PM
"a 91-year-old woman [has been charged] with playing a role in the deaths of 260,000 Jews at the infamous Auschwitz death camp."
:smarty:
Accusations are not facts.
So it is an accusation that she was charged? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2015, 08:44:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2015, 06:49:37 PM
Judging by the short sentences and early releases of numerous high ranking Nazis and the reticence in prosecuting Nazis by the German government from the 1950's on, I think the opinion of Nazi apologists counted for quite a lot. If it didn't, these people would have been prosecuted in 1955 rather then 2015.
If they prosecuted all the Nazis in 1955 society would not have been able to function. The US was very complicit in making sure de-Nazifying did not get taken to stupid proportions since we needed West Germany. When the majority of society was complicit what are you going to do? Same deal with the Stasi in East Germany.
Oh, I'm fully aware that the US was complicit. Denazification never got near "stupid proportions". As the article shows we had let camp workers go. I don't think they their particular expertise was required in the new Germany. Justice should not predicated on what's convenient. Simply because there are a lot criminals doesn't mean you shouldn't punish them. If we hung every SS man, I don't think it would have undone civilization. The Soviets came down much harder and East Germany wasn't an anarchy.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2015, 11:08:51 AM
Denazification never got near "stupid proportions".
It would have if they had charged every SS secretary.
QuoteThe Soviets came down much harder and East Germany wasn't an anarchy.
Yeah there is a model to be praised and emulated. Not a vestige of the authoritarian police state left behind.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2015, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2015, 11:08:51 AM
Denazification never got near "stupid proportions".
It would have if they had charged every SS secretary.
I doubt it. Still, I'm okay with it.
This is just a way of keeping people employed.
They should have executed most adults in the South for treason after the Civil War, but they decided not to. Politics man.
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2015, 12:20:17 PM
They should have executed most adults in the South for treason after the Civil War, but they decided not to. Politics man.
We did not execute anybody. Still has not stopped whiny lost causers from bitching about all the revenge that taken on the South. They were made to allow black people to vote (for awhile...), clearly a fate worse than execution.
I believe the commandant of Andersonville was executed. :nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2015, 02:07:52 PM
I believe the commandant of Andersonville was executed. :nerd:
Oh right. Good catch! But it was not for treason, it was for murder.
AFAIK no Andersonville radio operators were executed.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2015, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2015, 11:08:51 AM
Denazification never got near "stupid proportions".
It would have if they had charged every SS secretary.
Yeah, but every SS secretary and radio operator didn't serve at a concentration camp.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2015, 02:07:52 PM
I believe the commandant of Andersonville was executed. :nerd:
Because it was his fault the blockade worked so well.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2015, 02:39:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2015, 02:07:52 PM
I believe the commandant of Andersonville was executed. :nerd:
Because it was his fault the blockade worked so well.
Well he was convicted of personally shooting innocent men with witnesses. Witnesses who, after the war, were not his friends :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2015, 03:02:11 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2015, 02:39:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2015, 02:07:52 PM
I believe the commandant of Andersonville was executed. :nerd:
Because it was his fault the blockade worked so well.
Well he was convicted of personally shooting innocent men with witnesses. Witnesses who, after the war, were not his friends :P
It was harder to get together with your old SS buddies after the war.
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2015, 10:55:19 AM
So it is an accusation that she was charged? :unsure:
The fact that someone is charged is of no relevance to guilt or innocence. That's a key difference between the modern German criminal justice system and the Nazi era one.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2015, 02:20:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2015, 02:07:52 PM
I believe the commandant of Andersonville was executed. :nerd:
Oh right. Good catch! But it was not for treason, it was for murder.
And he was German. What is it with the Germans and war crimes? :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 28, 2015, 04:58:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2015, 10:55:19 AM
So it is an accusation that she was charged? :unsure:
The fact that someone is charged is of no relevance to guilt or innocence. That's a key difference between the modern German criminal justice system and the Nazi era one.
You told me I needed one fact about what had happened a minimum for having a discussion. I think I managed that.