|
United States20661 Posts
On May 15 2009 06:17 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 06:14 zatic wrote:
Please you really don't know what you are talking about.
The holocaust had almost nothing to do with WW2 except that the war that was happening at the same time made for the need to accelerate it.
I have trouble believing this but I really don't know either way. But it's irrelevant. The holocaust was warfare. Government ---> military ----> soldiers -----> actions that is how warfare works. the top gives orders and it moves down to the bottom and becomes actions.
By this definition, military relief efforts are considered warfare, as are any other government-sanctioned efforts carried out by soldiers [of which the majority are not killing; indeed, military recruiting is considered 'warfare' by your flawed definition]
The distinction between the Second World War proper [i.e. the armed conflict fought between the Axis powers + their allies against the Allied powers + their allies] and the Holocaust should be evident.
Your own definition of 'war' disproves the idea of the Holocaust being a war. Genocide, sure, but its not war if one party doesn't have any armaments. Genocide during a period of warfare does not mean the specific act of genocide is, in and of itself, war.
Zatic, bless him, has been absurdly charitable with you. Your self-admitted ignorance in this field somehow does not prevent you from flagrant violations of site rules regarding grossly misinformed posting.
|
On May 15 2009 06:51 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 06:17 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 06:14 zatic wrote:
Please you really don't know what you are talking about.
The holocaust had almost nothing to do with WW2 except that the war that was happening at the same time made for the need to accelerate it.
I have trouble believing this but I really don't know either way. But it's irrelevant. The holocaust was warfare. Government ---> military ----> soldiers -----> actions that is how warfare works. the top gives orders and it moves down to the bottom and becomes actions. This is not a definition of war and it is not even applicable to the holocaust although you might again call this off as semantics.
I didn't say that was a definition of war, wtf? I said it was how it works. And it clearly is. Are you actually going to try to argue that?
By any conventional definition of war, the one you previously quoted included, the holocaust was not war.
ok then I will pick which one I think is most accurate for this situation.
well, actually, I looked and they are both spot on, but I will go with this one:
[i]1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation;[i]
in case you don't know how definitions work, the first part is the definition, and the 2nd part elaborates upon it with an example. but, for the sake of humoring those that will undoubtedly nitpick every detail, I will address the whole thing.
a conflict carried on by force of arms,
was the holocaust a conflict? yes
was it carried on by force of arms? yes
as between nations or between parties within a nation
were the victims a party in this conflict? yes
were the nazis a party in this conflict? yes
Do you think warfare requires fighting from both sides? Ignoring that I bet various groups did fight back(I really don't know), that is not a necessary aspect for something to be part of "war".
All the unspeakable things that happened on the Eastern front, the mass executions, the Einsatzgruppen, the whole Vernichtungskrieg you can call war and war crimes. The holocaust was not.
why? because you say so? because most of the jews didn't fight back? explain to me your reason why the holocaust doesn't qualify as war. the holocaust was clearly part of a war on jews, and the nazis were the aggressors.
|
I don't know what does it matter whether it was a part of the "holocaust" or whatever else that happened on the front lines or occupied territories, accused was a part of a finely tuned mechanism with specific tasks. He did not act on his own to get there and it doesn't matter whether he volunteered or not. I do not agree with blaming everything on the higher-ups - there were many cases where people got sentenced for just following the orders, but not this particular one. Here we got a classic case against a member of SS. Maybe he did stab people with a sword( sounds really unlikely), maybe they just couldn't stand the fact that he was from Ukraine. Evidence in this kind of proceedings tend to be really inconsistent, part of a reason why he was not imprisoned the first time. You also cannot imply that his actions were "immoral", "unlawful" or "inhumane" at the time, no, he was perfectly "legal" doing what he was expected to do at the concentration camp to begin with. You throwing a lot of "holocaust" accusations around while it is highly debatable that it existed the way it was presented at the trials and in the official historiography. If all the evidence was true and he was proven to be one notorious maniac torturing people to please himself, then he should have been prosecuted long time ago. But you simply cannot drag a 90 year old guy out of his house relying on Israeli evidence, the stake of this trial is a life of a possibly innocent( or partly innocent) man. He won't even live through the trial. Also consider the fact that revenge should never become a deciding factor in any case.
|
On May 15 2009 07:29 Last Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 06:17 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 06:14 zatic wrote:
Please you really don't know what you are talking about.
The holocaust had almost nothing to do with WW2 except that the war that was happening at the same time made for the need to accelerate it.
I have trouble believing this but I really don't know either way. But it's irrelevant. The holocaust was warfare. Government ---> military ----> soldiers -----> actions that is how warfare works. the top gives orders and it moves down to the bottom and becomes actions. By this definition, military relief efforts are considered warfare, as are any other government-sanctioned efforts carried out by soldiers [of which the majority are not killing; indeed, military recruiting is considered 'warfare' by your flawed definition] The distinction between the Second World War proper [i.e. the armed conflict fought between the Axis powers + their allies against the Allied powers + their allies] and the Holocaust should be evident. Your own definition of 'war' disproves the idea of the Holocaust being a war. Genocide, sure, but its not war if one party doesn't have any armaments. Genocide during a period of warfare does not mean the specific act of genocide is, in and of itself, war. Zatic, bless him, has been absurdly charitable with you. Your self-admitted ignorance in this field somehow does not prevent you from flagrant violations of site rules regarding grossly misinformed posting.
ITS NOT A DEFINITION
oh bless zatic for being so charitable to me. ty lords looking down on me from upon your high horses(tl pun).
just playing zatic, I like you. but I think last romantic is even more arrogant than I am.
|
God.. every thread where an argument develops Travis steps in.
Then he just argues his point to the death.
How about this:
I WAS IN A WAR, FACT
I AM A REFUGEE OF WAR, FACT
PROSECUTION AFTER THE WAR DOES NOT WORK
This is my opinion as a person who HAS been there. All this kind of "witch hunt" does is "keep the story alive". Parents tell their kids about wars and history BEFORE they'll tell them about school, education,e tc. etc. I've seen this. For example, Bosnian kids who keep being told by their parents to hate Serbs and Croatians and remind them of all the genocides that happened during the war.
DONT YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND... NO ONE WINS. NO ONE... THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO JUST LET IT GO. Justice through murder leads to more murder, which isn't justice AT ALL.
It's not about understand the prison guard or what he did or what his circumstances are. It's about breaking the cycle of violence. God can, supposedly, forgive. Why can't humans? That's our problem. We don't forgive, we don't forget and we turn to war more easier then not as a result of prejudices we've built up in the past.
JLIG.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Update: Demnjanjuk has been sentenced to 5 years of prison on accessory of murder.
I have been following this case over the last 18 months, and it received quite some press in Germany.
A few things that became transparent over the last months that are new to this thread:
1. His prison guard ID from Sobibor death camp is regarded real and original
2. According to the jury he could not claim to have "just acted under orders". As it turned out over the last couple of months the Trawniki (recruited foreign death camp guards) enjoyed quite a few privileges including unhindered movement and accommodations outside the death camp. Many of them (up to 10% are estimated) choose to flee. He stayed however.
The case will go to the national high court now. The defense is relying on the following points:
1. This case is outside of Germany's jurisdiction
2. They refute point 2. from above and argue he had no choice
3. He was accused and sentenced to death by an Israeli court in the 70ies, but released due to trial flaws. The previous trial and custody should make up for any crimes he might have committed.
4. They ask for individual evidence on each of the accessory murder cases.
My personal take: The defense really hangs on 2.) in the national court. I doubt they will have any success on 1), 3), or 4).
Regarding 2.): There are conflicting reports from other Trawniki. As can probably be expected the ones who fled argue it was possible to flee, the ones who stay say they had no choice. It will really hang on what side the high court will lean to.
|
What kind of precedent exists for trials like this? Can the prosecution use precedent from the Nuremberg trials to claim that "Acting under orders" is not a defense?
I'm not at all familiar with German law, but are there any similar cases that have been tried in the last couple decades?
|
The dude is 89 years old. What sort of justice is being served by putting an elderly man in jail for 5 years? This is vengeance, pure and simple.
|
I think going after this guy for so long is stupid. Believe it or not a large portion of people who did those horrible things didn't want to and were in fear for their own lives or the lives of their families should they refuse orders. My wife's family on her dad's side had several nazi soldiers among them. Her grand mother (her grandpa is dead) was telling me that she and her kids were taken to a concentration camp where he had to work. She was pregnant at the time. They were told that if he didn't serve in their army, they would kill his entire family. He of course, served in their army but the conditions of the camp led to their oldest son's death. He was ordered to do deplorable things but even years later she says she was happy he did them because her and the rest of her children would have been killed. He wasn't an evil villian who hurt people for spite. He did what he was ordered to do because to do otherwise would bring horrible consequences.
|
On May 12 2011 21:20 PassiveAce wrote:
What kind of precedent exists for trials like this? Can the prosecution use precedent from the Nuremberg trials to claim that "Acting under orders" is not a defense?
I'm not at all familiar with German law, but are there any similar cases that have been tried in the last couple decades?
Nuremberg was a legal travesty :|
But yeah seems quite complicated.
|
EDIT: Excuse my ignorance.. just read the update. Sorry TL -0-
|
I dont get why that guy has been sentenced while the pope was a known nazi himself and he is considered holy... (benedict)
-.-
|
On May 12 2011 21:35 carloselcoco wrote:
I dont get why that guy has been sentenced while the pope was a known nazi himself and he is considered holy... (benedict)
-.-
The pope was a member of the Hitler Youth, as everyone his age at that time in Germany was, he wasn't actually in a concentration camp committing war crimes.
On topic: All I can say is that if he did have a hand in the deaths of 29,000 people then five years is way too short a sentence, not that it really matters though I guess since he's unlikely to live through even that.
|
On May 12 2011 21:16 zatic wrote:
Update: Demnjanjuk has been sentenced to 5 years of prison on accessory of murder.
I have been following this case over the last 18 months, and it received quite some press in Germany.
A few things that became transparent over the last months that are new to this thread:
1. His prison guard ID from Sobibor death camp is regarded real and original
2. According to the jury he could not claim to have "just acted under orders". As it turned out over the last couple of months the Trawniki (recruited foreign death camp guards) enjoyed quite a few privileges including unhindered movement and accommodations outside the death camp. Many of them (up to 10% are estimated) choose to flee. He stayed however.
The case will go to the national high court now. The defense is relying on the following points:
1. This case is outside of Germany's jurisdiction
2. They refute point 2. from above and argue he had no choice
3. He was accused and sentenced to death by an Israeli court in the 70ies, but released due to trial flaws. The previous trial and custody should make up for any crimes he might have committed.
4. They ask for individual evidence on each of the accessory murder cases.
My personal take: The defense really hangs on 2.) in the national court. I doubt they will have any success on 1), 3), or 4).
Regarding 2.): There are conflicting reports from other Trawniki. As can probably be expected the ones who fled argue it was possible to flee, the ones who stay say they had no choice. It will really hang on what side the high court will lean to.
Well, it's obvious to me what happened with those that fled and got caught.
Basically it's "guard the camp" or "flee and probably get caught and end up _inside_ the camp".
Anyways, noone here can say what his reasons really were and what exactly he had done, he might have done the job because he was scared or done it because he enjoyed it...
I think we should let it go. It was almost 70 years ago, doesn't make much sense to still hunt those people, they'll be gone in a few years anyways.
This doesn't mean that i think what he/they possibly did was not bad, it was... but 70 years is a lot of time (Just so you can compare it: In 70 years Boxer will be 100 (and probably look a lot more like the true emperor)).
|
I agree with some of the other posters, this feels more like vengeance rather then justice.
Whether or not he goes to jail wont change what happened. If jailing this person is supposed to give the families of the 29k people some peace of mind, I'm surprised they haven't gotten it yet after all these years. After so much time has passed, what else is there to be gained that can't be gained by simply moving on, especially for the younger generation?
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On May 12 2011 21:46 Jojo131 wrote:
I agree with some of the other posters, this feels more like vengeance rather then justice.
Whether or not he goes to jail wont change what happened. If jailing this person is supposed to give the families of the 29k people some peace of mind, I'm surprised they haven't gotten it yet after all these years. After so much time has passed, what else is there to be gained that can't be gained by simply moving on, especially for the younger generation?
Well I cannot speak for those families, but among the petitioners (is that the correct term?) there are 12 families from people who were murdered in Sobibor.
|
On May 12 2011 21:20 PassiveAce wrote:
What kind of precedent exists for trials like this? Can the prosecution use precedent from the Nuremberg trials to claim that "Acting under orders" is not a defense?
I'm not at all familiar with German law, but are there any similar cases that have been tried in the last couple decades?
Precedents are not important for trials in Germany. If you are interested, look up and compare "Civil law" and "Common law" on Wikipedia or so.
|
I'm guessing this was the lowest instance of court in germany?
I don't know much about law, but the defence seems to have a pretty good argument. It seems to me that typically these high profile cases where someone probably did something (but there is lack of proof), they get convicted in the lowest instance and then the case is just dismissed later.
Personally I think people have proven to behave like assholes when put in such a context. I wouldn't judge him for it today, much like someone executing a capital punishment today shouldn't be prosecuted for it in 50 years.
|
The really really sad thing is, that justice comes so late. But this the "second fault (Zweite schuld)" off germany. Until the 68 generation there were just pure denying off the nazi time.... and basicly everyone was guilty. Everyone who looked away was guilty. There are no excuses. Every soldier is responsable for his actions. The sad thing is you would have needed to arrest millions of people and that wasn't realistic. But that is was justice should have done.
side note: even today there still sooo many freaking cases left open. Basicly every german industry nowadays proffited by the nazi regime and the money that was stolen and robbed from all the jewish people. Like bmw, bayer, thyssen, vw... and the list ist endless^^
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On May 12 2011 21:54 Sablar wrote:
I'm guessing this was the lowest instance of court in germany?
This was a state court.
Above this is the national court, where the case will go to now.
Above that is the constitutional court. They will only accept the case if they see the ruling possibly in conflict with the German constitution. That could be the case if they follow the defense' opinion that this case is outside of Germany's jurisdiction for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
