Ex-Auschwitz Guard, Now 93, Charged With 300,000 Counts of Accessory to Murder

[c.d.]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/93-year-auschwitz-guard-charged-25510283

c.d.

[GUT]

G'day c.d.

Was talking about this with herself last evening. Interesting.

[Harry D]

*facepalm*

[GUT]

I want a brief, don't care if it's to defend or prosecute.

By the time they read the charges out, all 300,000 of them, I'll be dead but rich.

[Harry D]

As Kate Winslet said (re: the Holocaust) in Extras: "It was grim, we get it. Move on."

[Robert]

I make no comment about this individual. We must wait for the result of the trial.

But no, let's not move on.

[GUT]

I make no comment about this individual. We must wait for the result of the trial.

But no, let's not move on.

Agreed.

[Harry D]

A lot of atrocities were committed during WW2 - Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Bombing of Dresden, Unit 731. No one came out of it clean. So you'll forgive me if I think this whole thing is quite frankly farcical.

[Robert]

Don't ask me to forgive you, Harry. That is quite beyond my powers, since neither I nor any member of my family was on the receiving end of Auschwitz.

[belinda]

It doesn't matter how long it has been what these people did must be accounted for.

[Errata]

Don't ask me to forgive you, Harry. That is quite beyond my powers, since neither I nor any member of my family was on the receiving end of Auschwitz.

My family was, and it is farcical. Not that I think the Holocaust is one the same level as Hiroshima, Dresden, etc. Actively hunting and murdering your own civilian population is a whole other thing that is not determined by war.

But this guy is not Mengele fleeing prosecution and hiding in Argentina. He was not an irreplaceable wheel in the genocide machine. He was a guy who did a terrible thing for several years. He surrendered when all of Germany surrendered. He was available for any charges to be brought against him, and he was eligible to be charged at Nuremburg, or by any civilian or military authority since. And for 70 years no one brought charges. He has not lied about his involvement. He is accountable for his actions.

First of all, any crimes committed in Auschwitz were committed in Poland. A whole other country that while occupied by Nazi Germany, was not Germany. So that seems to be an insurmountable legal hurdle right there. Secondly, the man is 92, and his odds of living until the verdict much less the sentence is pretty small. Thirdly, if this is the man I think it is, he has been remarkably open about why he was a loyal Nazi, and has been speaking about it for certainly the last 15 years that I know of, probably much longer. Self aware former Nazis are a valuable resource for the end goal, and encouraging people who participate in genocide to keep their mouth shut until the end of days because they can get prosecuted at 93 is in no ones best interest.

And most of all, the people who died are dead. Nothing can bring them back. Nothing will bring them justice. The entire First World would need to be on trial for that, and that's impossible. Sure the Germans committed genocide. And France and Russia and Great Britain and Italy and the United States helped them do it. The end goal is to stop genocide. Never again. And we can't stop it if we don't know how to predict it and nip it in the bud. So punishing the people we need to understand is a bad idea. I know what this guy did. I don't have any ill will towards him. I don't want to split a beer with him, but I don't think anyone is going to gain by putting him on trial. 70 years is a long time to hold on to resentment, fear, and false righteousness. Let it go.

The only possible benefit I can see is that I hear from some German friends that Holocaust education there has apparently become nonexistent in the last 10 years or more. This would ensure the topic was widely known, but I'm not sure that a good enough reason.

[Ginger]

Bringing charges against a 93 year old for something he did 70 years ago seems insane to me, especially if, as Errata believes, his actions have been known all this time.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Ginger;309771]Bringing charges against a 93 year old for something he did 70 years ago seems insane to me, especially if, as Errata believes, his actions have been known all this time.[/QUOte.
There are crimes and crimes and crimes and crimes and crimes and crimes and then there's the holocaust it dosnt matter this was seventy years ago this man had the choice to do what he did like the vast majority of the participants of the holocaust he needs to go on trial and then the whole world can be shown again the end result of racism .

[dahler101]

Bringing charges against a 93 year old for something he did 70 years ago seems insane to me, especially if, as Errata believes, his actions have been known all this time.

I know it seems insane, being that Oskar Groening is 93, but so many of the victims of the holocaust have not lived to see even 10 years of age. This is on a Jack the Ripper site, most people believe that he was responsive for 5 murders, if there was a chance to bring the Ripper to justice (were he still alive) we would take it no? the Nazi's were responsible for millions of deaths, that is not including the deaths involved in war. Groening fuelled this terrible injustice and is both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of 300,000, and unlike Herman Goering (who believed that it was his moral duty) this man fled, like a coward and so many others to south america, were he lead a long a fruitful life, and perhaps breathed a sigh of relief because who would pursue him after so long?

Oskar Groening's trail is as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. People forget, and because people forget further atrocities like the holocaust are allowed to be committed.

[Robert]

Errata, with respect I think your way of thinking is highly dangerous. Even immediately after the war, some Germans and Japanese were let off, because they had scientific or medical knowledge, or even simply because the USSR was by then the main threat. Not nice. Come to think of it, if a surgeon were to bump off his wife tomorrow, would we let him go because he is a 'valuable resource' as he his capable of saving lives?

That's on the utllitarian aspect. On the purely moral aspect, I have no problems with a survivor of these camps exacting vengeance, via the State, against someone who is guilty of murder.

Please don't bring in the Middle East and the various groups that the West has supported over the years, because I'm not going into that quicksand. I'm only interested in the Holocaust aspect.