UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:That resonates with me. The trial is taking place in a context which is nothing like that of the time, and I am disquieted by that. For similar reasons, I think there are good arguments for a statute of limitations on sex crimes reported only long after the fact and based solely on anecdotal evidence.
Gröning was pushed by a prosecutor to answer whether he knew what the SS stood for when he volunteered to join it. He replied: “It is hard to describe it to someone of your generation who was not there. It is simply inexplicable.”
quote:So,at the time, you think people would have been more understanding? Really? Reading the reaction of soldiers encountering the various camps, I cannot think it would be.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Lastly, I was struck by this (from the article in the OP):quote:That resonates with me. The trial is taking place in a context which is nothing like that of the time, and I am disquieted by that.
Gröning was pushed by a prosecutor to answer whether he knew what the SS stood for when he volunteered to join it. He replied: “It is hard to describe it to someone of your generation who was not there. It is simply inexplicable.”
quote:I can't agree. Time can be a factor in conviction, but it shouldn't be in the limiting of charges. This completely misses the dynamics or rape and molestation.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
For similar reasons, I think there are good arguments for a statute of limitations on sex crimes reported only long after the fact and based solely on anecdotal evidence.
quote:If a fellow German had judged him harshly at the time, he or she would have done so from a position of having faced some of the same decisions. None of us has any idea how we would have acted if we lived in Nazi Germany. I don't think Oskar Groening can even understand his former self, let alone explain it to those who were not there.
posted by lilBuddha
So,at the time, you think people would have been more understanding?
quote:Possibly this isn't quite what Eutychus meant, but back in the 1950s plenty of 'mid level' Nazi's escaped prosecution. A large part of that was due to the feelings amongst the german public that people who were essentially 'following orders' were being unfairly victimised.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So,at the time, you think people would have been more understanding? Really? Reading the reaction of soldiers encountering the various camps, I cannot think it would be.
quote:This is precisely why such prosecutions should be harsh.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:If a fellow German had judged him harshly at the time, he or she would have done so from a position of having faced some of the same decisions. None of us has any idea how we would have acted if we lived in Nazi Germany. I don't think Oskar Groening can even understand his former self, let alone explain it to those who were not there.
posted by lilBuddha
So,at the time, you think people would have been more understanding?
quote:I didn't say whether I thought the sentence would be more or les harsh. What concerns me is the length of time that distances the court, and the players, from the circumstances. I think this does not help justice to be applied appropriately or meaningfully. The people involved come to symbolise much greater evils, and it's hard to stick with the facts of the case, let alone understand them as a court at the time would have done.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So,at the time, you think people would have been more understanding? Really? Reading the reaction of soldiers encountering the various camps, I cannot think it would be.
quote:I accept that such charges may take some time to be brought, and that imposing a statute of limitations means that some cases that deserve to be tried end up not being, but I still think there should be one. In France it's currently 20 years. (This is probably a tangent to the main topic here though).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can't agree. Time can be a factor in conviction, but it shouldn't be in the limiting of charges. This completely misses the dynamics or rape and molestation.
quote:Whilst I am a fan of restorative justice, I am failing to see how it could be applied here.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Like I say, I think a restorative justice approach would have been a lot better in the case in hand.
quote:IF he is truly remorseful, he can meet with them on his way to prison. As I said in response to moonlitdoor, it is precisely because he is a normal person that sympathy is not in order.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the back of an envelope, it would have involved Gröning being involved in face-to-face meetings with camp survivors and them determining together how he could be restored to a meaningful place in the community. I think that would have provided a better chance for closure for the survivors, and less potential for frustration.
quote:Well, from that it sounds as if you are quite a fan of retributive, rather than restorative justice...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IF he is truly remorseful, he can meet with them on his way to prison. As I said in response to moonlitdoor, it is precisely because he is a normal person that sympathy is not in order.
quote:Not at all. Not retribution. You miss what I have been saying or I am not communicating it well.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Well, from that it sounds as if you are quite a fan of retributive, rather than restorative justice...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IF he is truly remorseful, he can meet with them on his way to prison. As I said in response to moonlitdoor, it is precisely because he is a normal person that sympathy is not in order.
quote:I think people should be treated with humanity as far as is possible in view of their dangerousness, and that any incarceration should be as meaningful as possible for all concerned. Those responsible for sentencing arrangements routinely take into account age, health, and so on (or should do), and that is exactly how things should be.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Perhaps I should have said sympathy is in order, but not sympathetic treatment.
quote:This is a ridiculous assertion. I agree only too wholeheartedly that great evil happens because others allow it, but that does not alleviate the actual perpetrator's responsibility (unless it can clearly be demonstrated that they were manipulated and to all intents and purposes controlled by someone else, as is the case in some murders, for instance).
His crime is, in a way, more serious than Mengele's.
quote:I very much doubt that doing so would deter ordinary people from being similar "cogs in the wheel". The whole tragedy of such affairs is that most people act unawares and don't think they are like media monsters.
This is the message which should be writ large upon his trial, his epitaph and his tombstone.
quote:
Reacting to the sentence Auschwitz survivor Eva Mozes Kor said that she was "disappointed" adding: "They are trying to teach a lesson that if you commit such a crime, you will be punished. But I do not think the court has acted properly in sentencing him to four years in jail. It is too late for that kind of sentence..."My preference would have been to sentence him to community service by speaking out against neo-Nazis. I would like the court to prove to me, a survivor, how four years in jail will benefit anybody."
quote:Assuming you aren't yet 94, would you be happy for others to take the same view of you as and when you are?.
truly, at 94 and in poor health, it matters little what happens to him.
quote:The problem is that the historical context of the trial was one in which for decades mid ranking Nazis had escaped prosecution because of a much narrower interpretation of the laws by the German prosecutors - a process in which the rest of the West gave tacit approval to.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But atrocities like the Holocaust are perpetrated by normal people. Yes, the leaders are often monsters, but everyone else is just people.
This cannot be an excuse.
quote:So he's a scapegoat, should accept that and not complain? Are you saying that what should determine who gets punished and who doesn't is the social message trying them conveys - largely irrespective of their personal guilt or even whether the evidence happens to be sufficient to convict them?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... truly, at 94 and in poor health, it matters little what happens to him. It isn't about punishing him. It is about that message.
quote:My feelings exactly. Thank you for articulating them so well.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As to "restored to a meaningful place in the community" in this instance, well, off the top of my head, having an opportunity to apologise to survivors for his part in the atrocities, perhaps undertake to testify in public settings such as schools as to how he became caught up in them and how others might be prevented from doing so, and so on. If he is genuinely contrite then I think this would be much more meaningful, constructive, and even cost-effective than being a decrepit minor celebrity in a jail somewhere, especially as I do not see him being a danger to the public.
quote:I think that this is a valid point as well. Who knows how any of us might have responded in a similar situation.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
As I read this thread, I was put in mind of the liberation theology conception of 'structural sin'. I think there is much to explore here, between individual and social responsibilities for wrong doing. If you think the whole society is flawed, as the Nazi society clearly was, just what is the individual culpability for getting caught up in it? Not much, it seems to me. It takes a brave soul to make a stand against a whole society, when the price of that stand is clearly the execution of that brave soul.
quote:Here is where we definitely differ. A young former child soldier is more dangerous than an quadriplegic, octogenarian former child rapist and serial killer.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think people should be treated with humanity as far as is possible in view of their dangerousness,
quote:Clipped of context, yes. In its context, not as much.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:This is a ridiculous assertion.
His crime is, in a way, more serious than Mengele's.
quote:Who in the Hell said it did? I clearly said the evil act was worse. In those clear and unambiguous words.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree only too wholeheartedly that great evil happens because others allow it, but that does not alleviate the actual perpetrator's responsibility
quote:That is exactly my point. But we have a history of point the finger in other directions. The Nazis were evil, the Germans allowed it. They, always they.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The whole tragedy of such affairs is that most people act unawares and don't think they are like media monsters.
quote:We draw different conclusions, I fear, from that article. He gradually decided he did not wish to be there and incrementally made an effort to leave. And eventually came to the conclusion that the whole thing was wrong. Congratulations to Gröning, he is an average human being.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've read a bit more now.
quote:No disagreement that it is a mitigating factor. I do think major might be an overstatement. He did more than many. Presumably at no perceived risk, though. Still, he did not have to and it is a positive that he did.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From the above it emerges that Gröning came to the authorities' attention solely because he spoke out publicly against Holocaust denial. He didn't need to do that, and I'd suggest it's a major mitigating factor.
quote:No problem here either.
Reacting to the sentence Auschwitz survivor Eva Mozes:"My preference would have been to sentence him to community service by speaking out against neo-Nazis. I would like the court to prove to me, a survivor, how four years in jail will benefit anybody."
quote:What I was saying is that he is in ill health and 94. My point was not that the elderly are useless or should be ignored, but that the odds are very high he will be dead soon so prison won't be much of a punishment regardless. And, in fairness, he will be of limited use campaigning outside.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Assuming you aren't yet 94, would you be happy for others to take the same view of you as and when you are?.
truly, at 94 and in poor health, it matters little what happens to him.
quote:From what little I've read the West gave, not tacit approval, but the directive. It was part of the bolstering against the communists.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem is that the historical context of the trial was one in which for decades mid ranking Nazis had escaped prosecution because of a much narrower interpretation of the laws by the German prosecutors - a process in which the rest of the West gave tacit approval to.
quote:No, not by any definition of the word.
Originally posted by Enoch:
So he's a scapegoat,
quote:This.
Originally posted by Porridge:
We are a social species, and the aspect of justice which demonstrates or displays the workings-out of any justice system, also matters. Justice must be seen to be delivered, even or especially by those not directly involved in the specific case.
quote:I know this is well meant. However, it is not possible with the Nazi atrocities. I'm reminded of Erna Paris' book Long Shadows (a review here), where a Holocaust survivor who has presented to a group in Germany somewhere is asked how the younger generation, the children and grandchildren of those alive during WW2 can comfort Holocaust survivors. The answer was a succinct "you can't". Because it cannot be done. And to attempt to leads to some unfortunate revisionism of history.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
...restorative justice...
quote:80% of the whites in South Africa didn't support it. I don't know the stats for Rwanda. With the Holocaust, we've got revisionist history that contaminates it from the communist years and the cold war.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The principles of restorative justive have been implemented, for instance, to address the genocide in Rwanda and the apartheid years in South Africa. Why not the Holocaust?
Like I said, the term "restorative justice" is very broad, so I would be careful of saying there are instances it can't apply to.
quote:I was an exchange student in Germany in the mid-1950s. The first month, I lived with a German family, whose father had joined the Nazi party after Hitler came to power. During the 1920s, the Nazi party had many highly disreputable members. After Hitler came to power, he got rid of the openly disreputable people and recruited respectable middle-class people to make the party look good.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
If you think the whole society is flawed, as the Nazi society clearly was, just what is the individual culpability for getting caught up in it? Not much, it seems to me. It takes a brave soul to make a stand against a whole society, when the price of that stand is clearly the execution of that brave soul.
quote:Well, see, here is the problem with that. Hitler and the Nazis did not secretly strip German Jews of their citizenship, Kristallnacht was not committed quietly nor were the arrests, deportation or transportation. Nor did they do it slowly. People might not have known exactly what was happening, but they could be fairly certain it wasn't nice.
Originally posted by Moo:
but they did not participate in any of the overt evil actions.
quote:I said they didn't participate. Moreover, they had the idea that the government could do no wrong.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Well, see, here is the problem with that. Hitler and the Nazis did not secretly strip German Jews of their citizenship, Kristallnacht was not committed quietly nor were the arrests, deportation or transportation. Nor did they do it slowly. People might not have known exactly what was happening, but they could be fairly certain it wasn't nice.
Originally posted by Moo:
but they did not participate in any of the overt evil actions.
quote:That was not the belief of the ex-Nazis I knew. I'm not defending their point of view; I'm just telling you what it was.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We are the government. In every single instance of government, in every good and every terrible situation, the government is the people.
quote:I have photos of several of my cousins wearing various uniforms of armed forces, Hitler Youth, and frequently swastikas. Their children and grandchildren tell somewhat freer stories of the activities of their ancestors than you heard. Thousands upon thousands of young men participated in atrocities in the east, but also in the west. Tulles is a good example from 1944. These things were so common they are hard to catalogue.
Originally posted by Moo:
I was an exchange student in Germany in the mid-1950s. The first month, I lived with a German family, whose father had joined the Nazi party after Hitler came to power. During the 1920s, the Nazi party had many highly disreputable members. After Hitler came to power, he got rid of the openly disreputable people and recruited respectable middle-class people to make the party look good.
I am fairly certain that these late recruits were not told everything that was going on. Some of them would have protested. The man I knew appeared to be baffled by what had happened. He, like almost everyone who was an adult when Hitler came to power, had had most of his schooling while the Kaiser was on the throne. The pupils were indoctrinated with the idea that they belonged to the government and they owed it their complete obedience. No one ever suggested the idea that it was possible for the government to do evil.
I am very glad that it's not my job to judge the complicity of these people. Their joining the Nazi party greatly strengthened it, but they did not participate in any of the overt evil actions.
Moo
quote:Kristallnacht was carried out very publicly, but the Nazis tried to avoid publicity in their subsequent actions against Jews. After Kristallnacht quite a few Germans spoke out against it. They believed all the lies about the Jews, but they still objected to vandalizing houses of worship. From then on the Gestapo were as circumspect as possible.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
...Kristallnacht was not committed quietly nor were the arrests, deportation or transportation.
quote:Is that better or worse than the firebombing of Dresden ?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:I have photos of several of my cousins wearing various uniforms of armed forces, Hitler Youth, and frequently swastikas. Their children and grandchildren tell somewhat freer stories of the activities of their ancestors than you heard. Thousands upon thousands of young men participated in atrocities in the east, but also in the west. Tulles is a good example from 1944. These things were so common they are hard to catalogue.
Originally posted by Moo:
I was an exchange student in Germany in the mid-1950s. The first month, I lived with a German family, whose father had joined the Nazi party after Hitler came to power. During the 1920s, the Nazi party had many highly disreputable members. After Hitler came to power, he got rid of the openly disreputable people and recruited respectable middle-class people to make the party look good.
I am fairly certain that these late recruits were not told everything that was going on. Some of them would have protested. The man I knew appeared to be baffled by what had happened. He, like almost everyone who was an adult when Hitler came to power, had had most of his schooling while the Kaiser was on the throne. The pupils were indoctrinated with the idea that they belonged to the government and they owed it their complete obedience. No one ever suggested the idea that it was possible for the government to do evil.
I am very glad that it's not my job to judge the complicity of these people. Their joining the Nazi party greatly strengthened it, but they did not participate in any of the overt evil actions.
Moo
quote:I was talking very specifically about the ex-Nazis I knew who had been recruited by the party to provide window-dressing. The party needed to keep them, so they were not asked to do anything any of them might find revolting. They were also kept from knowledge of what was going on. Of course there were rumors, but the problem with rumors is that you can't tell which to believe. Remember, these men trusted the government.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have photos of several of my cousins wearing various uniforms of armed forces, Hitler Youth, and frequently swastikas. Their children and grandchildren tell somewhat freer stories of the activities of their ancestors than you heard.
quote:Because the winning side did Dresden, there would be no prosecutions. Because some of the guilty Germans were useful to the winners they didn't prosecute them either.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is that better or worse than the firebombing of Dresden ?
Should we locate and prosecute all the remaining personnel involved in bomber command and prosecute them ?
quote:Thank you for that. Although I'm prepared to say raising whole cities to the ground wasn't only justifiable but also necessary.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As far as comparing war atrocities, it is problematic.
Dresden and Tokyo were horrific and unjustifiable.
But I think one can conclude that the systematic attempt to exterminate an entire people. The building of an industry to do so, whilst torturing them and working them to death. The casual treatment of humans as pests to be exterminated. Yes, that's worse.
quote:Hitler knew of the extermination of the native peoples in the western hemisphere, and referenced it. There's a difference in historical times, that's about it.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I think one can conclude that the systematic attempt to exterminate an entire people. The building of an industry to do so, whilst torturing them and working them to death. The casual treatment of humans as pests to be exterminated. Yes, that's worse.
quote:If this is in any way aimed my way, I take great offence. I am unwilling to soften anything about anything when it comes to any of this. Which is why I refuse the restorative justice ideas completely in these situations.
Originally posted by rolyn:
If he's looking up from Hell I'm sure he'd be delighted to still find folks siding with a deliberately cynical and twisted attempt to soften Nazi atrocities.
quote:Do not thank me. It was neither justifiable or necessary. Don't think Churchill would have tried to tapdance away from it afterward were it either of those.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Thank you for that. Although I'm prepared to say raising whole cities to the ground wasn't only justifiable but also necessary.
quote:People certainly have used it this way, but I do not think anyone here has.
Originally posted by rolyn:
At the Nuremburg trials Herman Goering, who signed the death warrant of countless Jewish people without a second thought, used Dresden as a comparison to the Holocaust.
If he's looking up from Hell I'm sure he'd be delighted to still find folks siding with a deliberately cynical and twisted attempt to soften Nazi atrocities.
quote:This has nothing to do with Dresden or Tokyo. Or, indeed, anything I said.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Hitler knew of the extermination of the native peoples in the western hemisphere, and referenced it. There's a difference in historical times, that's about it.
quote:As far as a way to die? Gas is probably better than burning to death. Indiscriminate? Bombing certainly is, the gassing in the holocaust certainly wasn't.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it worse to gas people or firebomb them? Both are indiscriminate.
quote:And this is kinda my point. It is easy to get people to push a button and kill people they cannot see.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The bombing is less personal
quote:If you prefer then - Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the second bomb being dropped *after* Japan had offered to surrender.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, np, in an ideal world war crimes wouldn't happen.
As far as comparing war atrocities, it is problematic.
Dresden and Tokyo were horrific and unjustifiable.
But I think one can conclude that the systematic attempt to exterminate an entire people. The building of an industry to do so, whilst torturing them and working them to death. The casual treatment of humans as pests to be exterminated. Yes, that's worse.
quote:OK.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That clarifies. I don't make the exceptions.
quote:And it would have damaged his political career because the concern and protest started during the war regarding the bombings necessity.
Originally posted by rolyn:
The only reason Churchill 'tap danced' away from Dresden was because he knew the war was won. The methods, he fully endorsed at the time, by which it was won, when srutinized, would have damaged his political career .
quote:And anyone who thinks history = fact will believe anything.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Anyone who thinks area bombing served no purpose in shortening WW2 has no knowledge of the facts.
quote:First, I think the use of the atomic bomb was horrendous and I do not accept the justifications.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If you prefer then - Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the second bomb being dropped *after* Japan had offered to surrender.
quote:With Oskar Gröning it is not applying today's values. He was going to be prosecuted by 1940's values, but the American's decided that further low-level prosecutions would push the German people communist and halted the process. Or at least that is the reason given and everyone went along.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If we are going to implement today's values as justice - should we not prosecute those surviving individuals involved ? If not should we imprisoning people who did not actually murder anyone 70 years after the event.
quote:The offer to surrender specified that no American soldiers would set foot on Japanese soil, and that Japan would continue to occupy all the countries it had conquered. They proposed to set these countries free when they saw fit. Meanwhile, people in those countries were dying of starvation and disease at the rate of 100,000 per month.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
... Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the second bomb being dropped *after* Japan had offered to surrender.
quote:America cut them off from those supplies after they began territorial expansion in Asia. After the Rape of Nanking. Not an apologist for []any[/i] imperialism, but Japan needed no motivation in that regard.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The origins of the Pacific war in WW2 are far more complicated that the caricature of evil Japanese conquering countries. Some of what they conquered was American, British, French imperial colonies, and their motivation was economic: America cutting them off from steel and oil.
quote:America cut them off from those supplies after they began territorial expansion in Asia. After the Rape of Nanking. Not an apologist for any imperialism, but Japan needed no motivation in that regard. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That really isn't what the historical record shows.
Originally posted by rolyn:
No doubt it was up until the point he saw Hell falling out of the sky. His primary concern when putting paw print on a surrender he vowed never to sign was the belief that Tokyo was next.
quote:America cut Japan off from steel and oil when it became clear that the Japanese planned to take over much of east Asia. In the 1930s, young army officers assassinated a prime minister and at least one cabinet officer. There were other failed assassination attempts. The perpetrators were not severely punished. The attitude was that you had to understand and sympathize with their impatience. The effect was to intimidate the politicians and convince some of them they should quit politics. Meanwhile, some other hot-headed young officers had started a war in China.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Japanese having liberated the Philippines from the nice Americans, but didn't manage to liberate Hawaii from them.
The origins of the Pacific war in WW2 are far more complicated that the caricature of evil Japanese conquering countries. Some of what they conquered was American, British, French imperial colonies, and their motivation was economic: America cutting them off from steel and oil. America from the Japanese perspective wanted war with them, with alternative being a fully ruined economy.
quote:This reinforces my conviction that for you, this trial is much less about justice for the individual in the dock than about making a point.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That should be the take away from this, that is more important than whatever happens to the remainder of an old man's life.
Not because old people are unimportant, but that the message is more important than one person.
quote:It's no good, LilBuddha. That seems very near to 'it is better that one man should die for the people than that the whole nation should perish'. I'm with Eutychus on this one.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Not because old people are unimportant, but that the message is more important than one person. ...
quote:Just one person? How about two, or three, or a hundred? How about a million? Where would you draw the line?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That should be the take away from this, that is more important than whatever happens to the remainder of an old man's life.
Not because old people are unimportant, but that the message is more important than one person.
quote:This shows your misunderstanding. This is not about an approach to criminal justice. It is about war crimes. Which, while criminal, the prosecution of war crimes is about so much more. Symbolic verdict in Auschwitz case(from dw.de)
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This reinforces my conviction that for you, this trial is much less about justice for the individual in the dock than about making a point.
Which as far as I'm concerned is absolutely the worst possible approach to criminal justice, and certainly not a just one.
quote:
from above link:
herein lies the greatest symbolism of the case: the Auschwitz survivors, now old themselves, provided what will probably be the last official accounts of their suffering in the death camp. This is much more important than any prison sentence.
the most important message remains: there is no statute of limitations on genocide or crimes against humanity. Anyone who is implicated in such crimes – and even if only indirectly - should never be allowed to feel exempt from punishment.
quote:I'm willing to stand corrected on this, but I don't think the trial took place on a war crimes basis. It looks to have taken place in a normal criminal court under German criminal law, and not to fulfil the definition of a war crimes trial offered here.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This shows your misunderstanding. This is not about an approach to criminal justice. It is about war crimes.
quote:Yes it is, but that doesn't address the issue of appropriate sentencing in this case, or the OP's question about it.
the prosecution of war crimes is about so much more
quote:Precisely. And there have been plenty of arguments on this thread as to why serving a custodial sentence is unsatisfactory in this case. First and foremost, in my view, because of the nature of the offence and the huge length of time that elapsed before it came before a court.
quote:
herein lies the greatest symbolism of the case: the Auschwitz survivors, now old themselves, provided what will probably be the last official accounts of their suffering in the death camp. This is much more important than any prison sentence.
quote:That sounds fine and dandy until one starts to consider the whole rationale of punishment itself. Which is one of the big bugbears of restorative justice.
Anyone who is implicated in such crimes – and even if only indirectly - should never be allowed to feel exempt from punishment.
quote:Just as much, according to that same English Wikipedia article I just linked to.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[coughs politely] Nobody's yet answered my earlier post, and I really would like to know. What has this man done that he should be treated on par with (say) an actual prison guard?
quote:Germany is dealing with far right violence and a renewal of some of the racist agenda. This is causing the country to pay particular attention to this and similar trials, as well as current acts of violence against identifiable immigrants. They worry also about the far right in other countries, and want to stem it in Germany.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
---
quote:Indeed his individual guilt is important, but so is the general symbology. I think they view it differently than we do.
Originally posted by Enoch:
No Prophet, No! No! No!
If an individual is standing in the dock, he or she is being tried for what it is alleged he or she did. It is determining his or her guilt for what is alleged he or she did. If found guilty, he or she is punished for his or her crime(s).
This is not symbolic. It is actual crime and a matter of his or her individual and personal guilt. Anything else is requiring them to be a scapegoat.
quote:I suspect that he will have a community sentence. Again, this is about the symbology of it
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's as may be.
But if combating the rise of neofascisim is the court's motive for handing down a custodial sentence to this particular perpetrator it is, in my opinion, a complete abuse of the criminal justice system and likely to be wholly ineffective.
Did you miss the bit where the Auschwitz survivor said she'd rather Gröning received a community sentence requiring him to speak in schools on the dangers of Neo-Nazism?
quote:If you understand it after re-reading, you are still far, far ahead of me. I don't understand it in the least.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It says that the prosecutor in the 1960s Frankfurt Auschwitzprozesse would have liked to see all those of Gröning's ilk charged with murder, not just accessory to murder.
His reasoning was that the mere charge of accessory to murder implied the Nazi regime of genocide itself was legitimate (I had to read that assertion more than once before understanding it).
His whole argument appears to be the opposite of lilbuddha's: none of those involved were ordinary people with little or no choice; they all were every bit as monstrous as Mengele and co.
Which I think is to be completely self-deceived as to the common man's ability to be thoroughly evil. I repeat: any attempt to relegate an entire class of human (that conveniently excludes oneself) to some especially depraved subset is actually to take the first step down the road of Auschwitz all over again.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:The problem is that many Germans of that generation had been taught not to think for themselves when it came to government orders.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
It seems to me that the only effective way to combat an evil that relies on groupthink to go unopposed is to vigorously enforce individual responsibility for choices.
quote:And this reinforces my belief that people cannot help but think in a zero-sum manner.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This reinforces my conviction that for you, this trial is much less about justice for the individual in the dock than about making a point.
quote:This is not a typical case. Had Gröning been prosecuted just after the war, as he was going to be, he would have served a sentence. I would hazard a guess that it might have been longer than 4 years.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I am very familiar with a couple of cases in which harsh sentences have been dished out precisely to make a point,
quote:And Gröning was.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If an individual is standing in the dock, he or she is being tried for what it is alleged he or she did.
quote:You might have missed it, but Gröning committed the crime he was accused of. Admits it and everything.
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is not symbolic. It is actual crime and a matter of his or her individual and personal guilt. Anything else is requiring them to be a scapegoat.
quote:This thread exists because that is not what happened. Gröning received a custodial sentence.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I suspect that he will have a community sentence.
quote:No, but if, as I allege, you think the trial is much more about making a point than about individual justice, you still have your sums wrong.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:And this reinforces my belief that people cannot help but think in a zero-sum manner.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This reinforces my conviction that for you, this trial is much less about justice for the individual in the dock than about making a point.
Life is not zero-sum.
quote:What actually is that message, though? Nazis are bad? I think pretty much everyone has got that already. Genocide is bad? Likewise. That this guy wasn't an evil man, but we're going to treat him as if he was in order to make a point that nobody was fucking missing anyway? That doing the book-keeping job you're told to do by a government with a proven track record of executing those who disagree with them is a heinous crime on a par with actually murdering women and children?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oskar Gröning's trial is important. Not because he was exceptionally evil, but because he wasn't.
That should be the take away from this, that is more important than whatever happens to the remainder of an old man's life.
Not because old people are unimportant, but that the message is more important than one person.
quote:Let's remember that in this case "bookkeeper" is a euphemism for the looting of Holocaust victims. Cataloging the loot taken from Auschwitz arrivees before turning over to the Reich treasury seems like the kind of thing the phrase "the banality of evil" was coined to cover. Let's not forget that three of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials dealt in part with the plunder of private property (the Flick, I.G. Farben, and Krupp trials).
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
For freaking bookkeepers?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yes, I'm aware of that. I brought up bookkeepers in contrast to soldiers, who are as far as I know the only people who can be criminally prosecuted for cowardice.quote:Part of the Nuremberg defense was that various actions, up to and including genocide, were not criminal because they were done under color of law. You seem to be reviving this argument.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And yes, he's an evil bookkeeper. A scavenger, a bottom feeder, a patsy of an evil state. Duh. But nobody says he was going through the suitcases and pilfering crap to take home. Which would be ordinary theft, and thus criminal.
quote:Doesn't the same reasoning apply the Nazi elite, who also didn't personally "murder, torture, or imprison anyone". Eichmann is a particularly good example of this: an upper level bureaucrat whose job was to collect information on Jews, organize the seizure of their property, and arrange for and schedule trains to take them to various facilities. He neither created this policy nor carried it out at the ground level. Just following orders, etc.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In short, we're back to the original charge: You (meaning him) hung out with some really evil dudes, you knew what they were doing and didn't lift a finger to help their victims, and you provided support services* to their evil organization, though you did not yourself actually murder, torture, or imprison anyone.
*services of a type that are not evil in themselves, e.g. going through suitcases and removing items at the behest of authorities is what the TSA does too. The evil comes in who you're doing it for, and their motives.
quote:Once again, given that the Third Reich rewrote the law to legalize virtually all of their actions, couldn't that be said of virtually all their actions?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So again--we're looking at fudging things so that what is sin but not crime can be punished as a crime.
quote:Note. Not at all. My point is simply that you can't criminalize something after the fact, retroactively. The man appears to be guilty of nothing but being a colossal weasel who knew of the evil and did nothing to stop it. But that is AFAIK not criminal and never has been criminal.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Part of the Nuremberg defense was that various actions, up to and including genocide, were not criminal because they were done under color of law. You seem to be reviving this argument.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And yes, he's an evil bookkeeper. A scavenger, a bottom feeder, a patsy of an evil state. Duh. But nobody says he was going through the suitcases and pilfering crap to take home. Which would be ordinary theft, and thus criminal.
quote:No, it does not. These people were actively responsible for implementing murder (and that on a grand scale). They gave the orders that led to torture, imprisonment, and murder. That is equivalent to actually holding the gun etc.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Doesn't the same reasoning apply the Nazi elite, who also didn't personally "murder, torture, or imprison anyone".
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In short, we're back to the original charge: You (meaning him) hung out with some really evil dudes, you knew what they were doing and didn't lift a finger to help their victims, and you provided support services* to their evil organization, though you did not yourself actually murder, torture, or imprison anyone.
*services of a type that are not evil in themselves, e.g. going through suitcases and removing items at the behest of authorities is what the TSA does too. The evil comes in who you're doing it for, and their motives.
quote:And do you think the Third Reich is a particularly good example for US to follow?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Once again, given that the Third Reich rewrote the law to legalize virtually all of their actions, couldn't that be said of virtually all their actions?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So again--we're looking at fudging things so that what is sin but not crime can be punished as a crime.
quote:Theft and looting have never been criminal? I'll note once again that a lot of the actions taken by the Third Reich you say people should have been punished for were also not crimes (under Reich law) at the time they were committed. If Oskar Gröning isn't a criminal because his actions were sanctioned by the Third Reich, why doesn't the same logic apply to SS troops who took a more active role in carrying out those policies? Their actions were also not "crimes", as defined by their government of the time.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Note. Not at all. My point is simply that you can't criminalize something after the fact, retroactively. The man appears to be guilty of nothing but being a colossal weasel who knew of the evil and did nothing to stop it. But that is AFAIK not criminal and never has been criminal.
quote:This is not a distinction that's been made in the past. As I noted earlier a number of Nuremberg defendants were convicted for participating in state-sanctioned theft. Nor do we consider lack of personal profit to be a particularly mitigating circumstance when it comes to any of the other crimes committed by representatives of the Third Reich. Why do you consider participating in the theft half of a murder-theft conspiracy to be non-criminal provided it's sanctioned by the state? And why doesn't the same logic apply to the murder half? I know we all agree that murder is a much more serious crime than theft, but that doesn't make the theft half of a murder-theft plot non-criminal.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
His personal actions did not involve any murdering, imprisoning, or torturing. Nor did he filch objects for personal gain, which could be classed as looting or theft. There is simply no criminal category to fit him under.
quote:You could say the same of virtually any German citizen of the time. Shall we haul every one of them that's still alive into a court and sentence them for their inaction?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gröning didn't care about Jews being killed when he first learned of the practice. Not quite an innocent little bookkeeper.
quote:For sure. But I fail to see the relevance of any of that to the specific case under discussion.
But I've said it is about more than that and it is.
Nazi Germany did not happen overnight and with no support.
It happened with a lot of willing accomplices.
It also happened because people didn't care what happened to "others".
And it happened because of fear.
quote:Then why in the name of all that's holy is it so important to have a him who we can punish? Is he supposed to be representative of the inherent propensity for evil by inaction that lies within us all? Is his incarceration somehow going to stiffen our resolve such that we will resist the evil if/when it comes to us?
You point to one conflict, dust your hands and say lesson learned. I call bullshit. That is still a they did a bad thing and misses the point entirely. The point is that we could do the same thing.
quote:No, that doesn't mean it isn't right. But it does mean that compassion and forgiveness would be a better response to those who found themselves in that situation than relentless prosecution.
But you know what? Even in your "Hang on, when did this evil regime magically appear all around me"? scenario, yes, individuals are responsible for letting it continue.
Is this fair? No.
Is this easy to say from my relative safety? Yes.
Doesn't mean it isn't right.
quote:Yes, the strength of will and belief that characterises martyrdom is admirable. That doesn't mean it should be required.
Seems to me that there is a group of people, who are kinda revered by most Christians, who stood for what they believed right and were killed for this. Starts with m, I think. Magicians? No. Martians? Apparently not. I'll come to it eventually.
quote:Even in a fully free and democratic system, how much responsibility does an individual have for the government returned? Is each individual American or Brit personally culpable for the last decade of war in the middle east?
Anyway, the point is not about becoming a martyr, but about allowing that to become the option in the first place.
quote:Unless they made an active effort to change policy, yes.
Even in a fully free and democratic system, how much responsibility does an individual have for the government returned? Is each individual American or Brit personally culpable for the last decade of war in the middle east?
quote:"We" collectively, perhaps. An argument can be made for that. But it's an argument that I would suggest breaks down as soon as "we" becomes anything other than the entire population, especially when you start talking about direct responsibility for the bad things that government may do.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course we all share responsibility for what out governments do. We allow it.
quote:Well, no. We're talking about being a book-keeper who happens to work in the same place where it's going on. To me, that's stretching the definition of "active participation" well beyond breaking point.
And it is silly to say "Oh, then, arrest everybody".
We have laws that delineate legal responsibility. It is the way the law works.
In this case we are taking active participation, not vague knowledge of something bad.
quote:Previously you said we all share responsibility for what our government does. Now you're saying that responsibility falls only on those who don't actively resist (however that may be defined - would working as a book-keeper for one of the charities who opposed it be enough?).
quote:Unless they made an active effort to change policy, yes.
Even in a fully free and democratic system, how much responsibility does an individual have for the government returned? Is each individual American or Brit personally culpable for the last decade of war in the middle east?
quote:Weren't you the one who recently said "If knowledge were water, you'd die of dehydration collecting what the electorate understand"? Surely that would mean their passivity is a good thing...
No, it is not always clean, simple or easy, but we, as a rule, are much to passive in our participation in the process.
quote:Actually that seems pretty close to what he was convicted of; being deeply involved in the "theft" half of a murder-and-theft conspiracy. You don't have to directly participate in murder to be an accessory.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Fine, haul him in for state-sanctioned theft if you want. That's not what they did at his trial, is it? "State sanctioned theft" would at least have some semblance of reason about it. He did actually participate in taking victims' goods, even if he did not profit from the objects taken.
quote:This brings me back to the case of Eichmann. Adolf Eichmann would not seem to be an "active participant" under your meaning of the term. He didn't personally kill anyone, nor did he craft the policy that called for mass murder. Sure, he kept track of information on Jews, and arranged for trains to take Jews to the camps, and made sure those trains ran on time, and oversaw the seizure of their property (courtesy of Gröning and thousands more like him), but does that make him an "active participant"? Your reasoning would seem to say 'no'.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, no. We're talking about being a book-keeper who happens to work in the same place where it's going on. To me, that's stretching the definition of "active participation" well beyond breaking point.
I mean, where does it stop? Should the locomotive crews who delivered trainloads of Jews to Auschwitz be considered "active participants"?
quote:Interestingly the French national railway company has had to face up to it's bloody handiwork (in World War 2) and if memory serves me correctly they had to admit their guilt (they did transport Jewish people in France and beyond to certain death).
Well, no. We're talking about being a book-keeper who happens to work in the same place where it's going on. To me, that's stretching the definition of "active participation" well beyond breaking point.
I mean, where does it stop? Should the locomotive crews who delivered trainloads of Jews to Auschwitz be considered "active participants"? If so, then what about the maintenance crews who made sure the locomotives were in working order? Or the factory workers who built the locomotives in the first place? Or the miners who produced the raw materials that enabled the locomotives to be built?
Or what about the other people who happened to be working at Auschwitz - the cooks, cleaners, repairmen and so forth? Were they "active participants"?
quote:So, "We are all responsible, but I'm not."?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"We" collectively, perhaps. An argument can be made for that. But it's an argument that I would suggest breaks down as soon as "we" becomes anything other than the entire population, especially when you start talking about direct responsibility for the bad things that government may do.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course we all share responsibility for what out governments do. We allow it.
quote:It goes at least as far as anyone who worked in the process.
We're talking about being a book-keeper who happens to work in the same place where it's going on. To me, that's stretching the definition of "active participation" well beyond breaking point.
I mean, where does it stop?
quote:We are all responsible as a group. How you are individually responsible is dependent upon your action. Or inaction.
Previously you said we all share responsibility for what our government does. Now you're saying that responsibility falls only on those who don't actively resist (however that may be defined - would working as a book-keeper for one of the charities who opposed it be enough?).
quote:No, it means they should make the effort to gain the knowledge to vote out of something besides fear and familiarity.
Weren't you the one who recently said "If knowledge were water, you'd die of dehydration collecting what the electorate understand"? Surely that would mean their passivity is a good thing... [/QB]
quote:But the point is - what IS the "process"? Is it limited to people who actually stepped foot inside Auschwitz? Does it include people who never went near the place, yet whose actions (or inactions) allowed what happened there to continue?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It goes at least as far as anyone who worked in the process.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We're talking about being a book-keeper who happens to work in the same place where it's going on. To me, that's stretching the definition of "active participation" well beyond breaking point.
I mean, where does it stop?
quote:Oscar, this is one of the main debates. I question whether it is any use spending time and effort prosecuting WW2 personnel now - the passage of time is taking it's inevitable course.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:But the point is - what IS the "process"? Is it limited to people who actually stepped foot inside Auschwitz? Does it include people who never went near the place, yet whose actions (or inactions) allowed what happened there to continue?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It goes at least as far as anyone who worked in the process.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We're talking about being a book-keeper who happens to work in the same place where it's going on. To me, that's stretching the definition of "active participation" well beyond breaking point.
I mean, where does it stop?
Is Gröning really more culpable than (say) the man who drove the trains? Or a woman who cooked the meals for the guards?
It took the actions (and inactions) of a huge number of Germans to allow Auschwitz to happen (and keep happening). I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why Gröning should be picked out for attention over all the others.
quote:When you start talking about locking people up for it, yes.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, "We are all responsible, but I'm not."?
quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Is Gröning really more culpable than (say) the man who drove the trains? Or a woman who cooked the meals for the guards?
It took the actions (and inactions) of a huge number of Germans to allow Auschwitz to happen (and keep happening). I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why Gröning should be picked out for attention over all the others.
quote:AIUI many of the people who worked at Auschwitz were not German. They were citizens of the occupied countries. I assume they were coerced into working at Auschwitz; my impression is that the Nazis forced the citizens of the occupied countries to do all kinds of work they did not volunteer for.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Is Gröning really more culpable than (say) the man who drove the trains? Or a woman who cooked the meals for the guards?
It took the actions (and inactions) of a huge number of Germans to allow Auschwitz to happen (and keep happening). I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why Gröning should be picked out for attention over all the others.
quote:Good question. This kind of "I was never near the place" reasoning would seem to remove culpability from most of the Nazi elite. Kind of a reverse Nuremberg defense. "I was only giving orders."
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But the point is - what IS the "process"? Is it limited to people who actually stepped foot inside Auschwitz? Does it include people who never went near the place, yet whose actions (or inactions) allowed what happened there to continue?
quote:So your question is 'does the guy who robbed the dead (or soon-to-be-dead) and returned the proceeds to those who ordered their murder bear more responsibility than someone who prepared food for killers'? Yeah, I'm going to say that the looter-of-the-dead is more culpable than the cook. Looting the dead is part of the crime of the Holocaust, and one of ways the system sustained itself. Is looting the dead as serious an offense as killing them in the first place? Of course not. Is it a totally innocent action like cooking a meal? I'd say 'no'.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Is Gröning really more culpable than (say) the man who drove the trains? Or a woman who cooked the meals for the guards?
quote:Well yes. Auschwitz was a combination forced labor / extermination camp and the slaves (I don't think the term "worker" quite covers the actual situation) were almost exclusively from occupied countries.
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI many of the people who worked at Auschwitz were not German. They were citizens of the occupied countries. I assume they were coerced into working at Auschwitz; my impression is that the Nazis forced the citizens of the occupied countries to do all kinds of work they did not volunteer for.
quote:I believe that some of the guards were also from the occupied countries, and they weren't exactly slaves.
Originally posted by Croesos
Well yes. Auschwitz was a combination forced labor / extermination camp and the slaves (I don't think the term "worker" quite covers the actual situation) were almost exclusively from occupied countries.
quote:A lot of the top Nazi bods were quite expert in their endeavours to keep personal reputations unsullied.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This kind of "I was never near the place" reasoning would seem to remove culpability from most of the Nazi elite. Kind of a reverse Nuremberg defense. "I was only giving orders."
quote:Well, theres a tale. Himmler himself ''saved'' cough cough splutter splutter thousands of Jewish people in March/April 1945. It was an endeavour to save his own skin; in fact Himmler entered into direct negotiations with a senior Jewish Council member, based I think, in Switzerland who went to Germany in March/April 1945 and discussed matters with Himmler himself.
A lot of the top Nazi bods were quite expert in their endeavours to keep personal reputations unsullied.
I believe even AH himself was crafty enough never to actually apply his signature to any Final Solution documentation. A nod and a wink was sufficient. Rather hoping he'd go down in history as a bloody nice bloke.