94 year old Former Auschwitz guard on trial in Germany

I would be in favour of prosecution because it might act as a deterrent to people in similar situations in future.

I would be against prosecution if he would be shot for disobeying orders, because I have no doubt the majority of people would do the same in his position. It's a tough one. Overall, I'm probably in favour of prosecution.

Hypothetical question: if I was abducted by a serial killer and ordered to kill someone else they had captured under threat of being killed myself, would I be held responsible?

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Guard at Auschwitz... I don't want to be here,
Bang!/..... Dead guard
I don't hold everyone accountable for the actions of the minority leadership

Just on this point - a lot of Germans (and other nationalities - the holocaust was an international effort with volunteers from the Atlantic to the Urals) post war did point to their fear that if they rebelled against their service that they or their families would be targeted and reprisals would be carried out. There is however almost no occurrences of this ever happening. If anything, the Nazis recognised the evil acts they were carrying out were monstrous, they rationalised them as necessary to 'save' future generations and were if anything sympathetic to those who could not 'bear the burden'.

I referenced a case of a Wehrmacht driver who not only rescued Jews in Latvia but drove them back and forth in his army truck to meetings with the local resistance who were smuggling them out of the country. Now, when caught he was tried and executed for 'treason' but his family were completely unharmed, and he was even allowed to write a letter to his wife apologising to her, saying that she ought to know that with his big heart he couldn't not help people who were so desperate.

The terrifying thing from the holocaust and the nazi era is not that Germany 'went mad' or that there is something particularly bloodythirsty or evil about Germans. That's too easy - its that humans are generally 'followers'. Just like bullying the quiet kid in school, it suddenly became socially acceptable to murder and kill entire groups in WW2 Germany. And human beings fell into line for pretty much the same reason that no one stands up to the bully in school. People take their cues from their leaders - the very few who stand against the tide are sometimes heroes but they are very definitely different. Ex-Nazis might claim they feared for their own lives or the lives of their families, but what they really feared was being excluded by the group. The vast majority of human beings will do anything to avoid being outside the group.

You see the same story with pretty much every brutality, though the scale varies - if you look at war crimes carried out by military units in Afghanistan and Iraq, the root cause in small units is always the NCOs permitting or even encouraging those acts of brutality and the lower ranks trying to impress the NCOs by being brutal enough.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I knew you would answer that. These people are old men.

Yes, and their victims never got the chance to be old men. They should never sleep easy.

esforum wrote: »

considering the SS were not part of the German military but were a fascist armed section of a political party, thats not true, They were not soldiers and they didnt select a prestigious unit within the army. THey were a seperate entity that were in many cases, not liked within the regular military



Correct, so what?

The ones that werent bastards were the Lorraine French and Russian POWs forced at gunpoint to join up. the VOLUNTEER German can make no such claim.



Also correct and that kinda proves the point against this man doesnt it? Others saved lives, he helped to keep them locked in a camp where he knew they would be killed and were being tortured. Including children.

Schindler was a Nazi member after it became cool and good for busineess and again, used his position to save lives. He didnt sign up to the SS and shoot people.



All Germans pointed guns at Jews in auschwitz and prevented them from escaping while making no attempt to aid them? Hmmm, not sure about that.

I get that the war was at a time when he was young, 17 when war broke out, but plenty when all is said and done, didnt wear that uniform and he COULD have done something for the prisoners, as you yourself say, SS officers did assist Jews in some cases.

"He was said to have joined the SS forces voluntarily in 1940 at the age of 18 at the urging of his stepmother." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36168688)

An adult that made a conscience decision to join an organisation that was openly and actively harassing, abusing and killing Jews. Being naive or stupid is not a defence.

TBH, I'd think under the right circumstances, most human beings including yourself would join a prestigious unit and kill defenceless human beings. I would not absolve this guy of his crimes, but no one can prove he committed any he is being accused of. The idea that he would and *should* somehow single-handedly defeat the Holocaust is some juvenile powerfantasy by people who were not there and protest too much. Sure, he stood back and did nothing but most humans would have done exactly the same, and most likely so would you and so would I.

The lesson is not to criminalise him for being human. It is to learn to be vigilant - not to assume we are all virtuous naturally, but to armour ourselves. We need better leaders, who appeal to the best in humanity, not the worst. Because humans will follow them.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think people in that dire situation will worry that they might get prosecuted in decades time, sure imagine you have two choices 1. do your job and risk getting prosecuted decades later or 2. don't do your job and get a bullet. I know what most people would do.

There's something else to consider too, that in that situation, refusing to carry out the killing is not going to save the victim's life. It just means there will be two executions instead of one. I'm not sure what I would do if faced with that choice.

As to hunting down old men, well if old men have ordered or willingly carried out murders, they should be hunted down whatever age they are. The message needs to go out that such people will never ever be safe, and never able to stop looking over their shoulder, no matter how much time passes.

But...a guard, who was just a small cog in the machine? I'm not convinced that just being there (and Auschwitz was a big place) is enough basis to convict someone of a war crime. Assuming what he's saying is true, of course.

No doubt the British Labour Party will be campaigning for his release.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Nonsense their are plenty of war criminals around. The Black and Tans many of them were never brought to justice. The point i'm making is these guys having already been punished.

Yes, there are plenty of war criminals around.

Yes, many of the Black and Tans were never brought to justice (though I recall a few were convicted in British courts of the most inexcusable murders).

Punished by who? Who have they been punished by?

I really don't see how any of this justifies ignoring provable crimes by people whose only defence is that it happened a long time ago. If the crimes are so blatant, and the evidence so definite that guilt can be proven 71 years later then they ought to be punished.