89 y/o accused of 29k counts accessory to murder

On May 12 2009 09:45 Last Romantic wrote:
Mildly ridiculous. Even if he were guilty, this is simply accelerating the process of natural death by what? a decade, at the absolute upper limit?

To think of the massive costs of flying him around and providing medical care for him and the legal representation of both sides... it's simply not worth it for one damn prison guard.

On May 12 2009 09:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


You are looking at this from a purely capitalistic point of view. Put yourself in the perspective of a person who lost out on having a pair of grandparents.. or an entire lineage of family because of men like this man who obeyed orders to contain these people in a little pocket of hell on earth.

This man was supposed to face justice a long time ago. He didn't.. but as they say "It is better late than never."

On May 12 2009 09:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


You are looking at this from a purely capitalistic point of view. Put yourself in the perspective of a person who lost out on having a pair of grandparents.. or an entire lineage of family because of men like this man who obeyed orders to contain these people in a little pocket of hell on earth.

This man was supposed to face justice a long time ago. He didn't.. but as they say "It is better late than never."

On May 12 2009 10:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I know people like to fall back on the "just obeying orders" argument especially in regard to Nazi veterans but I am sorry.. that just doesn't fly with me.

And save me the "you weren't there, you don't know" argument as well. None of us were there, we are all speculating. That is a huge part of the forum. After all, very few of us are professional bw players yet here we are mostly discussing just that!

He didn't decide to be a guard at an internment camp but he was. On some level that is incredibly unfair but that is life. Sometimes you accidentally hit someone with your car, that doesn't mean justice simply turns away. The penalty might be less severe.. and in this case he probably won't be put to death. But the fact remains, he participated in something that was heinous and atrocious. Whether he decided to do it willfully or not he was an active participant in acts against humanity.

Guess who else didn't choose this fat? The 29k jews that were slaughtered in the camp he guarded.

On May 12 2009 09:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


You are looking at this from a purely capitalistic point of view. Put yourself in the perspective of a person who lost out on having a pair of grandparents.. or an entire lineage of family because of men like this man who obeyed orders to contain these people in a little pocket of hell on earth.

This man was supposed to face justice a long time ago. He didn't.. but as they say "It is better late than never."

On May 12 2009 10:28 Night[Mare wrote:
It's completly hilarious. Those were war times. War is not pretty. People being prosecuted for war crimes commited more than 60 years ago should be let them be.

IMO war crimes are fucking ridiculous. If you're in a war you're not going to "humanly kill" the opposition. You just want to kill them.

On May 12 2009 10:32 Sprite wrote:
Leave the guy alone seriously. He was a guard so what? it's not like he was a top member in the nazi party.

On May 12 2009 10:03 Clasic wrote:
Wait, he didn't chose to be a fucking guard, he doesn't deserve it..

On May 12 2009 10:45 FragKrag wrote:
No, if it was just another guard, it'd be ok, but there seems to be evidence that he, himself committed acts of brutality of his own free will etc. I'm sure nobody wants to take the time to punish every single German guard, just the ones who committed crimes.

On May 12 2009 10:30 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yes yes yessssssss WE GET IT people follow orders.. that doesn't mean you fucking spare them when those orders are illegal or fucking grotesque. That means you punish the people who issued the orders most severely, than punish the people who executed the orders to a lesser degree. I'm sorry but it has never/will never be ok to justify atrocious actions with "he ordered me to do it." You are still accountable.

On May 12 2009 10:52 armed_ wrote:

Except for the part where all he's being tried for at this point is being a German guard, not for being "Ivan the Terrible".

On May 12 2009 10:30 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yes yes yessssssss WE GET IT people follow orders.. that doesn't mean you fucking spare them when those orders are illegal or fucking grotesque. That means you punish the people who issued the orders most severely, than punish the people who executed the orders to a lesser degree. I'm sorry but it has never/will never be ok to justify atrocious actions with "he ordered me to do it." You are still accountable.

On May 12 2009 10:30 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yes yes yessssssss WE GET IT people follow orders.. that doesn't mean you fucking spare them when those orders are illegal or fucking grotesque. That means you punish the people who issued the orders most severely, than punish the people who executed the orders to a lesser degree. I'm sorry but it has never/will never be ok to justify atrocious actions with "he ordered me to do it." You are still accountable.

On May 12 2009 10:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I know people like to fall back on the "just obeying orders" argument especially in regard to Nazi veterans but I am sorry.. that just doesn't fly with me.

And save me the "you weren't there, you don't know" argument as well. None of us were there, we are all speculating. That is a huge part of the forum. After all, very few of us are professional bw players yet here we are mostly discussing just that!

He didn't decide to be a guard at an internment camp but he was. On some level that is incredibly unfair but that is life. Sometimes you accidentally hit someone with your car, that doesn't mean justice simply turns away. The penalty might be less severe.. and in this case he probably won't be put to death. But the fact remains, he participated in something that was heinous and atrocious. Whether he decided to do it willfully or not he was an active participant in acts against humanity.

Guess who else didn't choose this fate? The 29k jews that were slaughtered in the camp he guarded.

On May 12 2009 11:01 Night[Mare wrote:


Incontrol its not about it. What im trying to say is: this is war. It's fucking hilarious to put up a bunch of "rules" in which you can act or not while in war. They chose to murder brutally for something, call it fear, example w/e. If you want to take a piece of 'em, do it while still in war, not 657357 years later.

and of course, this is because they were on the losing side. I dont see any allied soldier being prosecuted for brutally murdering german captives / tourturing them etc. Just imagine the nazi party winning. Who would be the ones being prosecuted?

On May 12 2009 10:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I know people like to fall back on the "just obeying orders" argument especially in regard to Nazi veterans but I am sorry.. that just doesn't fly with me.

And save me the "you weren't there, you don't know" argument as well. None of us were there, we are all speculating. That is a huge part of the forum. After all, very few of us are professional bw players yet here we are mostly discussing just that!

He didn't decide to be a guard at an internment camp but he was. On some level that is incredibly unfair but that is life. Sometimes you accidentally hit someone with your car, that doesn't mean justice simply turns away. The penalty might be less severe.. and in this case he probably won't be put to death. But the fact remains, he participated in something that was heinous and atrocious. Whether he decided to do it willfully or not he was an active participant in acts against humanity.

Guess who else didn't choose this fate? The 29k jews that were slaughtered in the camp he guarded.

On May 12 2009 11:17 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:


if someone were going to kill you and your family if you didn't obey orders, you would do it, don't try the self-righteous shit, when you're on the spot things are different and you shouldn't be held accountable for something like that if you had no morally sound choice

On May 12 2009 10:57 Mastermind wrote:

Should Americans be held accountable for Hiroshima? That was fucking grotesque wouldnt you say? What about allied bombings of German cities killing a half million innocent civilians? Should the soldiers involved in those incidents be held responsible as well?

On May 12 2009 11:44 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


read the thread before posting.. I already addressed that very issue. You'd have to ignore the post to get where you did.

On May 12 2009 11:47 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:


you don't seem to understand the part where punishing someone for making a choice, when there was no morally sound choice, is retarded

On May 12 2009 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Preposterous. He was a guard, even in the worst of times one always has a choice especially when it comes to morals. He could have chosen not to commit crimes and objected, would he himself have been killed probably or probably not. That is not the discussion. But he did have a choice.

On May 12 2009 11:47 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:


you don't seem to understand the part where punishing someone for making a decision (specifically, the one more beneficial to them) when there was no morally sound choice, is retarded

On May 12 2009 10:30 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yes yes yessssssss WE GET IT people follow orders.. that doesn't mean you fucking spare them when those orders are illegal or fucking grotesque. That means you punish the people who issued the orders most severely, than punish the people who executed the orders to a lesser degree. I'm sorry but it has never/will never be ok to justify atrocious actions with "he ordered me to do it." You are still accountable.

On May 12 2009 11:55 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


NOt only do I understand it.. I discuss it. Again, read the part of my post where I address this.. if you have something specific to say to that great, that is called "conversation." Randomly mumbling shit nobody is discussing and applying it randomly to posts is called "bad posting."

So is the ol "reading comprehension is good" joke. Grow up or gtfo

On May 12 2009 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Preposterous. He was a guard, even in the worst of times one always has a choice especially when it comes to morals. He could have chosen not to commit crimes and objected, would he himself have been killed probably or probably not. That is not the discussion. But he did have a choice.

On May 12 2009 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Preposterous. He was a guard, even in the worst of times one always has a choice especially when it comes to morals. He could have chosen not to commit crimes and objected, would he himself have been killed probably or probably not. That is not the discussion. But he did have a choice.

On May 12 2009 12:06 ktp wrote:
This story sounds a lot like "The Reader".

This is the problem with using todays standards to look into crimes commited in the past. Being a Nazi prison guard from todays point of view is considered very evil only because its 60 years later and people are better educated. But back then there was nothing illegal about being a prison guard. So do we have a right to punish them even though back then there was nothing wrong with what they were doing?

Personally I'm ganna go with no on this one. I know for a fact that everyone here is probably doing something that will be considered heinous in 60 years. All that shit talking over the internet we do may seem innocent and fun right now but what if in 60 years its considered a crime punishable by death? Yikes, how the fuck were we supose to know? Standards and morals change so much over time, you can't hold people accountable that lived during a different era.

On May 12 2009 12:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
???

You aren't following my logic. I agree he had no choice if in fact he made the decision to preserve himself and his family. He was forced into an impossible situation. But how the hell do you get away from the fact he was still a conscious human being, guarding and doing other actions at a camp where they peeled the flesh from jews and made lamps? I cannot fathom how someone can say "oh well he was forced to do it." No.. many other people were given the same predicament and decided on the higher ground. Justice must be dished out to everyone involved. I don't care if a person was a fucking janitor mopping up the pulled teeth and bloody stalls.. they were a part of humanities worst atrocities.

Hell I'd fucking injure myself to get out of the duty. I'd flee the country. I'd divorce my wife and send her away with the kids (if they exist) and do _something_ to stop this. Self-preservation only gets you so far.. the world has literally never seen anything like what the nazis did to human beings.. methodically, experimentally and ever-so-slowly.

On May 12 2009 12:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
???

You aren't following my logic. I agree he had no choice if in fact he made the decision to preserve himself and his family. He was forced into an impossible situation. But how the hell do you get away from the fact he was still a conscious human being, guarding and doing other actions at a camp where they peeled the flesh from jews and made lamps? I cannot fathom how someone can say "oh well he was forced to do it." No.. many other people were given the same predicament and decided on the higher ground. Justice must be dished out to everyone involved. I don't care if a person was a fucking janitor mopping up the pulled teeth and bloody stalls.. they were a part of humanities worst atrocities.

Hell I'd fucking injure myself to get out of the duty. I'd flee the country. I'd divorce my wife and send her away with the kids (if they exist) and do _something_ to stop this. Self-preservation only gets you so far.. the world has literally never seen anything like what the nazis did to human beings.. methodically, experimentally and ever-so-slowly.

On May 12 2009 12:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


I'm going to hope and wish beyond wish that you are capable of seeing how wrong this is. Are you REALLY going to make the argument that "standards and morals change" as if suggesting it was ok to do what they did because it was 60 years ago? WHAT THE FUCK?

On May 12 2009 12:17 Brett wrote:

In relation to the bolded part of your post, you've already answered the question yourself with the previous sentence. "He was forced into an impossible situation". That is how people fathom the commission of such atrocities on a grand scale: They had to choose to be responsible for the harm/death of someone they had never met, or be responsible for the harm/death of their family. There is reason in that argument.

The argument obviously starts to break down when you consider how methodical some of this was, the scale of the atrocities, and the lack of direct application of duress though (Which seems to be where you're coming from, and I do understand that).

On May 12 2009 12:20 ktp wrote:


If course his actions weren't ok! But its only unacceptable because you live in today's society and have been educated about the Holocaust. Circumstance changes EVERYTHING.

And I don't know much about the legal system but I'm pretty sure it doesn't operate based on one's moral actions. You are under the assumption that if you are an complice to a crime then you should do everything you can do stop it from happening. If you don't, then you must be punished. If the law operated that way, we would all be put to death in jail. Everyone is an acommplice in crime, we are all 2 individuals away from illegal narcotics. Lets all have fun playing BW in prison.

On May 12 2009 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
HIS choice. Morality can never be taken away, ever. I'm not arguing the legal aspect of his actions. But the fact that he HAD an SS tattoo which he removed put into his morals during the process.

On May 12 2009 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
HIS choice. Morality can never be taken away, ever. I'm not arguing the legal aspect of his actions. But the fact that he HAD an SS tattoo which he removed put into his morals during the process.

On May 12 2009 12:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


But it isn't just "someone" it is 29k someones. And it wasn't the "death" it was the dehumanization and the grotesque slaughter of a people.. genocide. I'm sorry but I would risk my family for that cause. I couldn't live with the blood of an entire race of people on my hands because I have family in the country. I'd do everything I could to get my family away and safe (like many other people did) and that'd be that.

On May 12 2009 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote:
So with that line of thought Inc, how about the case of American soldiers who were given orders to torture Iraqi prisoners, despite the fact that it was illegal. Should they be held accountable as well? They were following orders given to them from someone higher up, but those orders were against international law.

I think you underestimate the duress that was put on people during the war. I don't believe the common grunt should have any legal culpability in cases like these. Decision makers, yes. Grunt forced to electrocute somebody's nuts, no.

And finally, the world has seen plenty other examples of what the Nazis did. The Nazis just made the best movie bad guys for our generation.

On May 12 2009 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote:
So with that line of thought Inc, how about the case of American soldiers who were given orders to torture Iraqi prisoners, despite the fact that it was illegal. Should they be held accountable as well? They were following orders given to them from someone higher up, but those orders were against international law.

I think you underestimate the duress that was put on people during the war. I don't believe the common grunt should have any legal culpability in cases like these. Decision makers, yes. Grunt forced to electrocute somebody's nuts, no.

And finally, the world has seen plenty other examples of what the Nazis did. The Nazis just made the best movie bad guys for our generation.

On May 12 2009 12:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


They were held accountable iirc? They were fired etc.. but if you are asking ME the answer is YES. Torturing prisoners the way they did is bad especially without the argument of a "ticking timebomb."

But that is a bad analogy. America wouldn't kill their families if they didn't do this. They'd lose pay and maybe serve a small sentence for refusing to do an order.

On May 12 2009 12:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


They were held accountable iirc? They were fired etc.. but if you are asking ME the answer is YES. Torturing prisoners the way they did is bad especially without the argument of a "ticking timebomb."

On May 12 2009 12:53 Manifesto7 wrote:


As far as Obama is concerned, those who made the decisions to torture are not being prosecuted. I am talking about the sanctioned torture, not the prison controversy from Abu Garhib (sp?).

I don't think the analogy is flawed at all. In fact, I think it is an interesting observation that faced with far less consequences, the American soldiers made the same decision that the German soldiers had to make.

Maybe, if anything, this speaks to the culture of the army as the reason it is so difficult to examine this issue. You spend years saying "yes sir!", years training to kill people, years eating sand (or French grapes) and shooting people, and then at one point you have to say "whoa whoa whoa, this crosses the line"? You might think it looks good on paper, but I think those are pretty tough expectations.

Anyway, I have always found this dilemma interesting to think about, because there is surely no right or wrong answer. It is just an illustration of the horrors of war, in all its manifestations.

On May 12 2009 12:55 rushz0rz wrote:


They were fired??? OH NOES.

On May 12 2009 09:45 Sanity. wrote:
hes not gonna do anything else. leave him alone imo.

On May 12 2009 13:07 R3condite wrote:

agreed... vengeance isn't wat we should be seeking

esp since he's already so far in.... just leave him be, i bet if he was a guard he feels bad about it himself

On May 12 2009 13:07 R3condite wrote:

agreed... vengeance isn't wat we should be seeking

esp since he's already so far in.... just leave him be, i bet if he was a guard he feels bad about it himself

On May 12 2009 12:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


It is a bad analogy (imo) because A. the severity of the soldiers situation is FAR less. B. The severity of the order is FAR less. C. The war time scenario is completely different. etc etc

But YES I think they should be prosecuted.. so I don't know if you were thinking I'd think they shouldn't because they are American? This isn't a nationalistic thing for me..

On May 12 2009 09:43 JinHyunKim wrote:
Its .. Its OVER NINE-THOUSANND

On May 12 2009 09:45 Last Romantic wrote:
Mildly ridiculous. Even if he were guilty, this is simply accelerating the process of natural death by what? a decade, at the absolute upper limit?

To think of the massive costs of flying him around and providing medical care for him and the legal representation of both sides... it's simply not worth it for one damn prison guard.

On May 12 2009 14:53 Schnake wrote:


In general I think it is a matter of principle, so balancing idealism with pragmatism, one could argue about the sense of this whole thing but I tend to support to whole trial. Be that as it may, it is quite astounding to me that they needed so long to actually find this guy and take action. I mean, he is not somewhere in Argentina hiding in the mountains or something like that.

It would be such a huge PR blow if the trial were lost though, so the prosecution takes quite a risk here.

On May 12 2009 10:30 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yes yes yessssssss WE GET IT people follow orders.. that doesn't mean you fucking spare them when those orders are illegal or fucking grotesque. That means you punish the people who issued the orders most severely, than punish the people who executed the orders to a lesser degree. I'm sorry but it has never/will never be ok to justify atrocious actions with "he ordered me to do it." You are still accountable.

1. he did what he could to survive. thumbs up
2. what he did is say his family but he ended up murdering many people, regardless of his position, thumbs down
3. He made no one happy but himself and possibly his family, he caused a shit load of suffering. thumbs down.
4. he violated the right of every person he killed, taking their lives unwillingly.
5. He was his job, he did what he was suppose to do. thumbs up
2/3 not good enough, what he did was morally wrong, based off the dota guys thread lol

On May 12 2009 15:16 frankbg wrote:


So every soldier of the US Army fighting in Iraq should be brought to an international court since this war is illegal according to multiple international laws and treaties? Should the guantanamo guards all be prosecuted too? This is the logic you're using here.

On May 12 2009 15:18 Juicyfruit wrote:


If they do or assist in some illegal shit, then yes. What's so complicated about that?

On May 12 2009 14:00 General Nuke Em wrote:
Consider this thought experiment.

Assume Nazi Germany is a perfectly tyrannical state. Hitler is a thousand feet tall, is the baddest motherfucker on the face of the planet and knows what every german soldier is doing all the time and will personally come over and kill you if you refuse his orders to kill jews. And since Hitler wants every Jew dead, your two choices are to kill jews or die yourself. Not much of a choice.

But Nazi Germany wasn't a perfectly tyrannical state. Hitler wasn't a thousand feet tall, wasn't the baddest motherfucker on the face of the planet, didn't know what every German soldier was doing all the time, and (more importantly) relied on a massive military bureaucracy to make sure any German soldier that disobeyed orders.

This military bureaucracy was made up of other German soldiers. If you want to blame "coercion" for the actions of people, consider this. Every German soldier that disobeyed an order and was shot was shot by another German soldier. Therefore its not just "the Nazis" that coerced people; when you're saying that people were coerced into doing committing war crimes, its really German soldiers coercing other German soldiers (into coercing other German soldiers etc.). Where do you draw the line? Is one man choosing to kill Jews versus dying himself because he was coerced by other Germans really any worse than the next guy along the chain who had the choice between coercing the prison guard into killing Jews or dying himself?

This also causes problem for the coercion theory, since what incentive does everybody have for coercing everybody else into doing things for Hitler? Somebody somewhere wasn't coerced into doing it, and those are the people that are ultimately responsible. As we know, there were plenty of people that willingly believed in the Nazi ideology. These people are the truly evil ones, not the ones coerced into doing it or the ones that were apathetic about it and went about their daily lives, possibly even as guards at death camps.

So in a sense I think the "we were just following orders" excuse is somewhat valid, but only for some people. And then you get into a giant fucking mess trying to figure out who was a willing Nazi and who wasn't.

On May 12 2009 15:21 Jayme wrote:


You don't seem to grasp the point. Torture is ILLEGAL. If you want to discuss principle (like Inc is doing) then that falls under things you should prosecute for. Degree does not matter in this case, illegal Torture carries a HEFTY prison sentence with it. This war currently is illegal.. period... but they wont be prosecuted. You want to know why?

Winners in wars are rarely held accountable for illegalities... it's the losers that bare the brunt of it.

(Oh and lol at people saying that the soldiers should have stood up for what was right - that just shows complete ignorance of the state of Germany during that period)

On May 12 2009 13:13 konadora wrote:
This reminds me of the time they sent a letter asking for reparations for breaching copyrights to a dead grandmother.

They should stop following the law every single time so senselessly *cough KeSPA cough* and see what is the most appropriate measure. At least drag the guy out after he's been completely proven to be guilty >__>

Oh, you guys might want to try the movie "Philosophy of a Knife". It's about Japanese crimes against humanity in China by performing human experiments unimaginable. Downright sickening too.

On May 12 2009 14:00 General Nuke Em wrote:
Consider this thought experiment.

Assume Nazi Germany is a perfectly tyrannical state. Hitler is a thousand feet tall, is the baddest motherfucker on the face of the planet and knows what every german soldier is doing all the time and will personally come over and kill you if you refuse his orders to kill jews. And since Hitler wants every Jew dead, your two choices are to kill jews or die yourself. Not much of a choice.

But Nazi Germany wasn't a perfectly tyrannical state. Hitler wasn't a thousand feet tall, wasn't the baddest motherfucker on the face of the planet, didn't know what every German soldier was doing all the time, and (more importantly) relied on a massive military bureaucracy to make sure any German soldier that disobeyed orders.

This military bureaucracy was made up of other German soldiers. If you want to blame "coercion" for the actions of people, consider this. Every German soldier that disobeyed an order and was shot was shot by another German soldier. Therefore its not just "the Nazis" that coerced people; when you're saying that people were coerced into doing committing war crimes, its really German soldiers coercing other German soldiers (into coercing other German soldiers etc.). Where do you draw the line? Is one man choosing to kill Jews versus dying himself because he was coerced by other Germans really any worse than the next guy along the chain who had the choice between coercing the prison guard into killing Jews or dying himself?

This also causes problem for the coercion theory, since what incentive does everybody have for coercing everybody else into doing things for Hitler? Somebody somewhere wasn't coerced into doing it, and those are the people that are ultimately responsible. As we know, there were plenty of people that willingly believed in the Nazi ideology. These people are the truly evil ones, not the ones coerced into doing it or the ones that were apathetic about it and went about their daily lives, possibly even as guards at death camps.

So in a sense I think the "we were just following orders" excuse is somewhat valid, but only for some people. And then you get into a giant fucking mess trying to figure out who was a willing Nazi and who wasn't.

On May 12 2009 15:31 seppolevne wrote:


Or a complete ignorance of how the military works. "Sir I won't do it sir" is not a valid answer to the orders, its grounds to be shot. Following orders is human nature. People do what they are told.

On May 12 2009 11:45 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Had we lost the war we WOULD be held accountable.

On May 12 2009 15:53 ShaperofDreams wrote:
*edit: also that conflicts with the fact that we help child soldiers in africa, instead of prosecuting, both are human with a moral choice right?

On May 12 2009 10:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I know people like to fall back on the "just obeying orders" argument especially in regard to Nazi veterans but I am sorry.. that just doesn't fly with me.

And save me the "you weren't there, you don't know" argument as well. None of us were there, we are all speculating. That is a huge part of the forum. After all, very few of us are professional bw players yet here we are mostly discussing just that!

He didn't decide to be a guard at an internment camp but he was. On some level that is incredibly unfair but that is life. Sometimes you accidentally hit someone with your car, that doesn't mean justice simply turns away. The penalty might be less severe.. and in this case he probably won't be put to death. But the fact remains, he participated in something that was heinous and atrocious. Whether he decided to do it willfully or not he was an active participant in acts against humanity.

Guess who else didn't choose this fate? The 29k jews that were slaughtered in the camp he guarded.

On May 12 2009 16:08 ShaperofDreams wrote:
also what about the firebomb that America dropped on a wooden Japanese village, killed 80 000 vilagers, the pilot most likely received a medal and benefits.

On May 12 2009 15:59 Guss wrote:


Worst fucking argument ever. Everything is ok as long as you win? Lets say your father got the order to drop napalm on vietnam, lets say he was a guard at guantanamo, where they sleep deprived people of sleep for 11 hours along with other torture methods. Should he be sentenced? according to you no because whos gonna prosecute him? America won!

And your saying how germany did all these aweful things to the jews. This is correct, but this is only one camp. How would a guard at one camp know all the things they are doing to jews in all the camps. Not a very good argument but still.

On May 12 2009 15:52 Guss wrote:
iNcontroL do you think we should prosecute every american who dropped napalm over vietnam with no other intention then to cause pain and anguish?

On May 12 2009 16:15 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


do you think carrying out normal war missions like dropping bombs is comparable to guarding an internment camp where they tested pain tolerance on pregnant women and the fetus inside them before they died?

War is fucking ugly I agree. I would never sit here and tell you napalm is the balm of love and tickles but I certainly would hope you agree what the Nazis did was something special.. something especially fucking evil. Hence the trials that have continued to span the better part of 100 years.

3) People who committed high treason in Nazi Germany were executed, along with most of their friends and family.

But Nazi Germany wasn't a perfectly tyrannical state. Hitler wasn't a thousand feet tall, wasn't the baddest motherfucker on the face of the planet, didn't know what every German soldier was doing all the time, and (more importantly) relied on a massive military bureaucracy to make sure any German soldier that disobeyed orders.

On May 12 2009 16:15 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


do you think carrying out normal war missions like dropping bombs is comparable to guarding an internment camp where they tested pain tolerance on pregnant women and the fetus inside them before they died?

War is fucking ugly I agree. I would never sit here and tell you napalm is the balm of love and tickles but I certainly would hope you agree what the Nazis did was something special.. something especially fucking evil. Hence the trials that have continued to span the better part of 100 years.

On May 12 2009 16:15 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


do you think carrying out normal war missions like dropping bombs is comparable to guarding an internment camp where they tested pain tolerance on pregnant women and the fetus inside them before they died?

War is fucking ugly I agree. I would never sit here and tell you napalm is the balm of love and tickles but I certainly would hope you agree what the Nazis did was something special.. something especially fucking evil. Hence the trials that have continued to span the better part of 100 years.

On May 12 2009 17:11 zatic wrote:
You guys seriously need to get your Nazi facts straight before jumping to conclusions.

- German soldiers were drafted into the Wehrmacht, yes
- Desertion meant death sentence, yes
- It did NOT mean your family ended up in a concentration camp or would be killed too

However, this does all not matter because

Concentration camps were run by the SS and SD, NOT the Wehrmacht. SS and SA were initially armed branches of the party, the NSDAP. You were not drafted into the SS. In fact, it was considered an elite Nazi organization. The Fuehrerprinzip by which the SS was run makes sure that if you advanced there means you were the worst kind of human being on the planet.

The Eastern divisions of the SS that guarded the death camps and were comprised of Fremdvoelker were notorious for their cruelty even among SS circles. I guess if you were not Arian you had to prove more.

This whole romantic idea of an innocent that was forced to help kill the jews is nothing but a legend.

On May 12 2009 11:44 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


read the thread before posting.. I already addressed that very issue. You'd have to ignore the post to get where you did.

On May 12 2009 17:18 Guss wrote:


Would you say that everyone who joined the SS or SD knew what was going on in the death camps when they joined the SS or SD?

On May 12 2009 17:25 no_comprender wrote:
WTF?

back then the people were taught, directly and through propaganda that jews were some kind of bane to society and needed to be gotten rid of. so his GOVERNMENT told him this, so he's supposed to source his deep seated conscience that all men are equal from where? god? keep in mind blacks weren't allowed to vote at that time either so it's not as if USA was totally inline with current thought. i mean sure he MAY have suspected in his heart that the camp he was gaurding was on sketchy moral ground, but if he protested he'd be probably be shot or at LEAST lose his job which who's gonna do that in wartime. is it the LAW to risk your life/job to defend your own personal morals that are out of whack with current thinking? thats the dumbest thing ever, people are a product of their environment, you can't hold people accountable for action only deemed totally unacceptable AFTER THE FACT

in nazi germany racism wasn't considered ok enough to be a part of government policy, you can't expect people to risk their lives making whacked out moral decisions that aren't even part of the social fabric of the time. say in 50yrs smoking is illegal, should be go back and give fines to today's smokers because they've should've realized that its fundamentally wrong? i know its a crap example but the gist is clear

dumbest thing ever, they are totally scapegoating this guy over just to win friends

On May 12 2009 15:45 Piy wrote:


True. Like that study where 80% or something of participants gave what they thought to be lethal elctric shocks to people

On May 12 2009 17:44 no_comprender wrote:
reply with what you don't understand and i'll explain it

i think a better example than the smoking one this: say in 50yrs pigs are found to be as intelligent as humans and killing them is just as illegal as killing humans, i mean right now there is PETA and other people who say that all animals have the same rights to life as humans etc but it's hardly a widespread opinion. do you think people who are pigfarmers today should be punished in 50yrs in that scenario? should they quit their jobs and risk the livelihood of their family to appease a minority moral opinion because it might become widespread and "obvious" in the future?

On May 12 2009 16:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Where the FUCK do I say it is "ok" ? I am stating facts as a realist. Please do not inject your projected emotion or morality with what I am saying. Of fucking COURSE it isn't ok that victors determine what is right or wrong. But that is how it is so fucking deal with it.

On May 12 2009 18:00 berkguyyy wrote:
Come on now, anyone knows Nazi Germany is not the exact same as North Korea. However, the point I was trying to get across is that both are societies with different sets of morals from what Western nations have today. And this is why individuals within these societies may have acted in an immoral way according to our standards. And yes, while not all the Germans bought up the propaganda, many many did. It doesn't justify their actions, but it does give a rational explanation as to why people acted the way they did. Btw, getting to the point, this is nothing more than political grandstanding. Free the old man!

On May 12 2009 18:26 no_comprender wrote:
the point is not about pigs or jews , it's about the arbitrary nature of morality. that you can't hold people responsible for not acting in a way that no reasonable person in their situation (at that time and place in history) would have acted

right now we don't think animals lives are worth as much as humans, it was the same with jews in germany TO THE EXTENT where mass killings of jews was allowed to happen in that society. so even if it is decided that animals (jews) are just as worthwhile as humans (aryans) in the future, those who operate on the knowledge and morality of their time shouldn't be punished under the morality of tomorrow

On May 12 2009 18:49 Mah Buckit! wrote:
Well, if this guy was a guard at a deathcamp then you should think what options did he have?
Not that many.
And so what if he was a guard? Did he enjoy it? Don´t think so...
Maybe also the people who democratically voted Nazis and Hitler to power should be prosecuted.

IMO

On May 12 2009 18:47 Mandalor wrote:


Your whole argument of animal rights is ridiculous. The mass killing of jews was NOT accepted in society. That's why it was never confirmed by the nazi regime and that's why propaganda tried to cover it up. People that worked at concentration camps knew what they did was not accepted by society, but they did it anyway - for idealistic reasons or greed.

On May 12 2009 17:44 no_comprender wrote:
reply with what you don't understand and i'll explain it

i think a better example than the smoking one this: say in 50yrs pigs are found to be as intelligent as humans and killing them is just as illegal as killing humans, i mean right now there is PETA and other people who say that all animals have the same rights to life as humans etc but it's hardly a widespread opinion. do you think people who are pigfarmers today should be punished in 50yrs in that scenario? should they quit their jobs and risk the livelihood of their family to appease a minority moral opinion because it might become widespread and "obvious" in the future?

On May 12 2009 19:59 vGl-CoW wrote:
so how many more people are going to be stupid and ignore the fact that he was a volunteer and was actually known for being a complete savage

i think like six or seven

On May 12 2009 20:15 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:


for the record i understood this and responded only to someone saying he was accountable by association since 'he had a choice' or whatever

On May 12 2009 20:23 MoltkeWarding wrote:
There is an unfortunate fad, since the Historikerstreit to dilute the meaning of Nazi Germany by the study of comparitive totalitarianisms.

That Germany's moral and civilizational heritage was different from that of Russia or North Korea, and therefore, inherit a different standard of responsibility, is too often ignored. To compare the Germans of the 40s with the Huns or Scythians is to depict the diversity of human nature with too broad a brush. The Germans were an integral part of Western, Christian civilization. The Germans were the best educated nation of that time, with immense intellectual and cultural prestige. Those who are interested in circumstantial ethics would do better to understand the particular circumstances in which an action is formed, than excuse their laziness by assuming that all actions are explained by their circumstances.

There's a kind of pitiful self-indulgence in our imposition of historical distance from the Nazi regime. The imagination that civilizational progress has outdistanced such crude times is an ironic piece of self-deception considering that virtually all public enjoyments of the modern youth consist of barbaric, civilization-degrading, irrational, impulsive activities.

And Nazism was a young movement.

On May 12 2009 20:47 Flyingdutchman wrote:
if someone orders you to do it, and you don't...you'll probably get shot for treason. So how much choice did he have? It is easy to say you're still acountable from your modern and sheltered point of view, but we are talking about a whole different world back then. Wake up, if you refuse to carry out orders in wartime (in that day and age) you will be executed.

On May 12 2009 10:28 Night[Mare wrote:
It's completly hilarious. Those were war times. War is not pretty. People being prosecuted for war crimes commited more than 60 years ago should be let them be.

IMO war crimes are fucking ridiculous. If you're in a war you're not going to "humanly kill" the opposition. You just want to kill them.

On May 12 2009 11:16 Eldariel wrote:
Punishing row soldiers from an old war is hardly fair. It's not like they had a choice in the first place. Not to mention, that war is done and buried. The guilty (and the "guilty") have been brought to justice (or mostly killed), winners have written the history and there's nothing left there. The crimes are simply too old to punish anyone for anymore; they should merely act as a reminder for the future. This is just dumb.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget that he's done nothing criminal with his life at any point. He's never broken the law in the country he's lived in. He's mostly being punished for having survived.

On May 12 2009 13:07 R3condite wrote:

agreed... vengeance isn't wat we should be seeking

esp since he's already so far in.... just leave him be, i bet if he was a guard he feels bad about it himself

On May 12 2009 12:06 ktp wrote:
This story sounds a lot like "The Reader".

This is the problem with using todays standards to look into crimes commited in the past. Being a Nazi prison guard from todays point of view is considered very evil only because its 60 years later and people are better educated. But back then there was nothing illegal about being a prison guard. So do we have a right to punish them even though back then there was nothing wrong with what they were doing?

Personally I'm ganna go with no on this one. I know for a fact that everyone here is probably doing something that will be considered heinous in 60 years. All that shit talking over the internet we do may seem innocent and fun right now but what if in 60 years its considered a crime punishable by death? Yikes, how the fuck were we supose to know? Standards and morals change so much over time, you can't hold people accountable that lived during a different era.

On May 12 2009 17:11 zatic wrote:
You guys seriously need to get your Nazi facts straight before jumping to conclusions.

- German soldiers were drafted into the Wehrmacht, yes
- Desertion meant death sentence, yes
- It did NOT mean your family ended up in a concentration camp or would be killed too

However, this does all not matter because

Concentration camps were run by the SS and SD, NOT the Wehrmacht. SS and SA were initially armed branches of the party, the NSDAP. You were not drafted into the SS. In fact, it was considered an elite Nazi organization. The Fuehrerprinzip by which the SS was run makes sure that if you advanced there means you were the worst kind of human being on the planet.

The Eastern divisions of the SS that guarded the death camps and were comprised of Fremdvoelker were notorious for their cruelty even among SS circles. I guess if you were not Arian you had to prove more.

This whole romantic idea of an innocent that was forced to help kill the jews is nothing but a legend.

On May 12 2009 11:01 Night[Mare wrote:

Incontrol its not about it. What im trying to say is: this is war. It's fucking hilarious to put up a bunch of "rules" in which you can act or not while in war. They chose to murder brutally for something, call it fear, example w/e. If you want to take a piece of 'em, do it while still in war, not 657357 years later.

and of course, this is because they were on the losing side. I dont see any allied soldier being prosecuted for brutally murdering german captives / tourturing them etc. Just imagine the nazi party winning. Who would be the ones being prosecuted?

On May 12 2009 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Preposterous. He was a guard, even in the worst of times one always has a choice especially when it comes to morals. He could have chosen not to commit crimes and objected, would he himself have been killed probably or probably not. That is not the discussion. But he did have a choice.

On May 12 2009 22:34 FalliNinLove wrote:
IF I were in death camp and they killed my parents in there, I would kill him even if he was 20minuts away from natural death.

On May 12 2009 17:55 zatic wrote:

Stop bringing up stupid comparisons that don't apply.

Again, get your facts straight before jumping to conclusion. Germany ways a (albeit flawed) democracy until 1933, with one of the most forward constitutions at the time. The first concentration camp opened in 1933. Are you telling me the entire population was brainwashed within weeks to the point they forgot that murdering people might be wrong? Even after 10 years of propaganda there is no excuse like "hey sorry, I just didn't know better".

On May 13 2009 00:37 Carnac wrote:
So according to HamerD if we are going to put people on trial for certain things, the only way to justify it is by invading every country on earth and do the same thing there? Are you really that deranged?

On May 13 2009 00:24 Cloud wrote:
I really dont see the point in making an example out of a 90 year old for something that happened 60 years ago.

On May 13 2009 00:50 HamerD wrote:


People should be legally judged by the laws of the country in which they live- at the time in which they did the crime. What's wrong with that?

I don't believe in retrospective sentencing and I don't believe in trying crimes done in a foreign country by our own laws.

On May 13 2009 01:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I love how people are saying that if someone "held a gun to your head" your aren't responsible for what they make you do.. yet I am being called the romantic when I say "even if someone holds a gun to your head you to some degree will be held responsible for what you do."

lol @ him ending up being a fucking brute who volunteered. MMmmmm sweet victory.

On May 13 2009 04:07 floor exercise wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Just because the argument hasn't been used successfully in court (not that I can't say if it has or hasn't) doesn't mean studies haven't been done to prove that psychology most people can be forced to do things against their will

On May 13 2009 04:34 oneofthem wrote:
this is not an argument per se. it is circular and depends on one holding one moral vision superior to another. i am here only explaining why i reject punishment in this case, a decision that is made with some conflict but to which i am absolutely committed.

On May 13 2009 00:24 Cloud wrote:
I really dont see the point in making an example out of a 90 year old for something that happened 60 years ago.

On May 13 2009 01:13 Cloud wrote:
err.. the general population didnt know about concentration camps, or at least what was really going on in there.

On May 13 2009 00:50 HamerD wrote:


The point is revenge.

On May 13 2009 05:29 LaughingTulkas wrote:
I guess even if he was guilty of being a prison guard, I would be in favor of showing mercy. Is another death or another person in prison really the best way to atone for the horrible crimes of the holocaust? I don't think it's going to help ease any of the pain, or make anyone feel better. Sure maybe he deserves it, but there is pity, and there is mercy, and these are virtues sorely lacking today. He's an old man and he (perhaps) has lived his life with the memory of the things that he has done. He seems all used up to me, and even if he were guilty of those terrible crimes, yet mercy would seem to be a better course. Another punishment is not going to do anything.

Maybe a quote would be better:

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." ~Gandalf

Death does not atone for death, and wounds are not healed in revenge. Forgiveness and mercy can bring healing, and justice should sometimes be tempered with mercy. This man is not a danger to society (if he was it would be different) and I see little harm and much good in letting him live the rest of his life without this trial.

Is a Lord of the Rings quote what you would recite in front of the survivors of the concentration camps to make a point?

On May 13 2009 06:49 barbahaba0 wrote:
i'm sorry to say but your little article failed to give all the facts
the guy was captured allready and brought to israel in the 70's
where he was trialed but for lack of evidence found not guilty
the guy u'r talking about wasnt just a guard in prison camp
he used to stand between the lines of people naked walking to the showers and stabbing them with a sword
(those who dont know the history , the showers were gas chambers to dispose of the jews the fastest and most methodical way the germans thought of back than )

kind of ruthless to torture people on the way to their death .....
has nothing to do with following orders the guy was a sadist
now if this 89 years old is this war criminal i dont know btw his name was Demaniuk
but it seems new evidence has risen
if he is the guy no mercy will be coming from me for all i care he can be 200 blind and cripple
but maybe he is not the guy anyway
wtf is this forum on this heavy subject ????
just move back starcraft !

On May 13 2009 06:01 Carnac wrote:

Thanks for perfectly demonstrating that you don't understand anything. I don't even want to reply to your other post anymore, it's too ridiculous.

On May 13 2009 05:47 Railxp wrote:
"standards and morals change so much over time, you cant judge" Not true at all. There might be some morally ambiguous circumstances, but killing is not one of them.

On May 13 2009 07:33 HamerD wrote:


what the hell other point is there? As a deterrent for other 90 year old people to 'not have committed crimes against humanity in WWII'? You're an idiot if you think the word 'justice' means anything more than 'revenge'.

On May 13 2009 06:01 Carnac wrote:


Is a Lord of the Rings quote what you would recite in front of the survivors of the concentration camps to make a point?

On May 13 2009 06:49 barbahaba0 wrote:
i'm sorry to say but your little article failed to give all the facts
the guy was captured allready and brought to israel in the 70's
where he was trialed but for lack of evidence found not guilty
the guy u'r talking about wasnt just a guard in prison camp
he used to stand between the lines of people naked walking to the showers and stabbing them with a sword
(those who dont know the history , the showers were gas chambers to dispose of the jews the fastest and most methodical way the germans thought of back than )

kind of ruthless to torture people on the way to their death .....
has nothing to do with following orders the guy was a sadist
now if this 89 years old is this war criminal i dont know btw his name was Demaniuk
but it seems new evidence has risen
if he is the guy no mercy will be coming from me for all i care he can be 200 blind and cripple
but maybe he is not the guy anyway
wtf is this forum on this heavy subject ????
just move back starcraft !

On May 12 2009 09:55 Disintegrate wrote:
has to fly half way across the fucking world just to see some misfit judge lay punishment on a fucking crime that's about as severe as me fucking the neighbor's dog.

On May 12 2009 10:30 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yes yes yessssssss WE GET IT people follow orders.. that doesn't mean you fucking spare them when those orders are illegal or fucking grotesque. That means you punish the people who issued the orders most severely, than punish the people who executed the orders to a lesser degree. I'm sorry but it has never/will never be ok to justify atrocious actions with "he ordered me to do it." You are still accountable.

On May 13 2009 08:18 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
read the thread then post

On May 13 2009 07:52 Carnac wrote:

So I'm an idiot because I can differentiate between two notions?

You know that your user information reads 4 bans that can be very well be summarized as having been issued for you acting like an idiot, right?

I rest my case.

On May 13 2009 07:38 HamerD wrote:


You have to be kidding me. My great grandfather shot over 50 germans in the first world war, he murdered them, a lot of them he shot in the back whilst they were running (he was a sniper), he was given a medal for it. Should he be punished for it?

On May 13 2009 08:46 Railxp wrote:


With the utmost respect and sensitivity regarding this issue, and I by no means want to personalize it, but if you ask that question, it is hard not to do so. Realize also that you are emotionally involved. In accordance with my previous post, Do i think what he did was wrong? Absolutely. Do I think he should be locked up? Nope. But I do sincerely hope that once in a while he thinks about the families that have been undone by his bullets, and that he feels guilty for it (er stick this under past tense if he already passed on). The rhetoric that troops are good but war is bad is bullshit. Without troops there can be no war. The purpose of an army is to kill, if you join it, you full well know and expect to do so. Just because you put on a uniform and get medals for it doesn't make killing right. Its wrong for the Nazis and its wrong for everyone else.

On May 13 2009 08:52 HeadBangaa wrote:
HamerD, justice is independent of revenge and deterrent. This isn't an ethics course.

On May 13 2009 08:37 HamerD wrote:


I was responding tit-for-tat to you saying that I 'don't understand anything'. There is no productive use of punishment save to a) prevent the person from reoffending b) prevent others from doing the same thing or c) to get revenge.

On May 13 2009 08:52 HeadBangaa wrote:
HamerD, justice is independent of revenge and deterrent. This isn't an ethics course.

On May 13 2009 11:43 Brett wrote:



Neither of you appear to have a solid grasp of sentencing principles, so I suggest you leave those issues aside.

In very brief terms, sentencing in and of itself is the process of doing justice. You'll find that the commonly accepted sentencing principles are: Deterence (Specific and General), Retribution, Denunciation, Community protection and rehabilitation.

On May 13 2009 09:16 HamerD wrote:


But I think the way you think about my great grandfather is the way I think about this guy. I very much doubt the guy hasn't experienced moral guilt. Very much.
<snip>
I can't see how, no matter how vitriolic his intentions or murderousness, he would EVER go to jail for that. Even if he killed 1000 Germans...or 29,000. Killing and torturing in war time, when it is allowed by upper echelons, is just plainly very different from in peace time.

Also, I think Milgram really can be taken farther. It shows that quite a few people have sadistic streaks in them. Really evil, sadistic fucking streaks. They do the milgram test quite a lot on TV in England, and every time they repeat it, I always see a few people smiling and enjoying the power rush of making someone cry out in pain. I am convinced these people, if they were told by a scientist, commanding officer or governor; would be PERFECTLY happy allowing their most revolting sadistic tendencies come to light. In the name of advancement of science, of their group.
<snip>

Killing and torturing in war time, when it is allowed by upper echelons, is just plainly very different from in peace time.

Years later, reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt wrote of "the banality of evil." Like Eichmann, most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains. Rather, they either overidentified with an ideological cause or suffered from a lack of imagination: they couldn't fully appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions

On May 13 2009 12:45 zatic wrote:
HamerD why even bring up the iccup stats of you granddad? Unless he was a torturer at a concentration camp in Burma (yeah, you had those too) there no point in bringing that up.

Again, everyone, please:

- Demjanjuk was not a soldier
- What he did were not war crimes
- The holocaust and the death camps were NOT war crimes

The comparisons to any act of war just do not apply.

The death camps were murder. Call them crimes against humanity if you want but they were not war crimes. If John Doe of Utah shoots his neighbor then this is murder, not a war crime, even though the US is currently at war. How is this concept so hard to understand?

On May 12 2009 10:30 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yes yes yessssssss WE GET IT people follow orders.. that doesn't mean you fucking spare them when those orders are illegal or fucking grotesque. That means you punish the people who issued the orders most severely, than punish the people who executed the orders to a lesser degree. I'm sorry but it has never/will never be ok to justify atrocious actions with "he ordered me to do it." You are still accountable.