|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should Oskar Gröning be in prison?
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
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.
For sure. But I fail to see the relevance of any of that to the specific case under discussion.
And again, what message are you saying this trial is sending? "Don't vote for fascist parties or you'll be jailed"? "Care about what happens to others or you'll be jailed"? "Don't be scared of the government or you'll be jailed"?
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
Yes, the strength of will and belief that characterises martyrdom is admirable. That doesn't mean it should be required.
quote:
Anyway, the point is not about becoming a martyr, but about allowing that to become the option in the first place.
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?
And if not, then how much less culpable are those whose governments come about through systems that aren't free and democratic, be it through official or unofficial means?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not going to answer point by point, it becomes muddled.
Of course we all share responsibility for what out governments do. We allow it.
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:
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?
Unless they made an active effort to change policy, yes.
No, it is not always clean, simple or easy, but we, as a rule, are much to passive in our participation in the process.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course we all share responsibility for what out governments do. We allow it.
"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.
quote:
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.
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:
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?
Unless they made an active effort to change policy, yes.
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 is not always clean, simple or easy, but we, as a rule, are much to passive in our participation in the process.
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...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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"?
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'.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Marvin the Martian said: 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.
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"?
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).
The railway has admitted guilt and may have had to pay compensation. Although I am not sure of exact details.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course we all share responsibility for what out governments do. We allow it.
"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.
So, "We are all responsible, but I'm not."?
quote:
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?
It goes at least as far as anyone who worked in the process.
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?).
We are all responsible as a group. How you are individually responsible is dependent upon your action. Or inaction.
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... [/QB]
No, it means they should make the effort to gain the knowledge to vote out of something besides fear and familiarity.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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?
It goes at least as far as anyone who worked in the process.
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?
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.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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?
It goes at least as far as anyone who worked in the process.
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?
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.
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.
The wider debate you raise is very valid though - collective guilt.
I have mentioned this before and it is one of the best indictments ever (in my view) of widespread knowledge of the holocaust amongst the German senior officer class. Senior German army (not SS) knew exactly what was going on especially in regard to the killing of innocent men, women and children in Eastern Europe,
The German Army participated willingly in the killing of civilians. In fact these German were secretly recorded after their capture as they were housed in British stately home Trent Park.
They had no clue all their private conversations were being recorded - a fascinating insight into what German army personnel knew about the Holocaust.
This is really worth a watch (I think the BBC did a similar Timewatch coverage of this fascinating episode).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyE0SXDZ1uw
To be fair many German folk over these last 70 years have genuinelly shown remorse for Nazi evil.
The debate will no doubt go on.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, "We are all responsible, but I'm not."?
When you start talking about locking people up for it, yes.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Precisely.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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."
quote:
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?
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'.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I believe that some of the guards were also from the occupied countries, and they weren't exactly slaves.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
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."
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.
[ 24. July 2015, 13:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Rolyn said: quote:
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.
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.
He was, apart from being the Prince of darkness personified, leader of the SS (and thus Groning's boss by the way) and general factotum of all police services in Germany and beyond. This man was seniority itself in the Third Reich.
The euphemism for murder was ''bound for the East and work camps''.
The fact of genocide is NOT unique as we know today (Pol Pot in Cambodia in the 1970s). But what WAS unique about Nazi Germany was the industrial scale of the holocaust. It was highly organised to the last details - hence Adolf Eichmann was the high priest of organisation; the clockwork efficiency was stunning, yet utterly evil.
It is this Germanic efficiency and thoroughness which can be laid at Groning's door. He was in the SS, he was a Seargant in the SS and he knew full well the evil of the death camp he was resident in.
Saul
[ 24. July 2015, 15:15: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
