It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oh, for Heaven's sake, give it a rest already!

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


These were SS officers who thought they were on the 'fast track' to promotions within the Nazi regime.They didn't put just anyone in charge of those camps.They were more than willing to do anything they were told to look better to they're superiors.
Indeed they are guilty as charged.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem


Those soldiers didn't make the decision to commit those crimes, for the most part, they were merely told to stand guard at the camps and make sure no one escaped. Holding the guard responsible for the work of the executioner is wrong IMO.


I have faith in the rehabilitation in nearly every criminal but, as I said before, these people probably expect it. If these people had any decency and truly feel repentant, then prosecuting them will be a favor for them as they won't find peace other wise. If they don't feel guilt for their sins (yes, being compliant while your colleagues butcher crowds of children is a sin), then those are the people we need to make especially accountable.


ps - Ideally, we would forgive but I can't imagine the horrors some of the survivors had to live through. I can't judge them for not forgiving.
edit on 5-10-2011 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by reeferman
 


What they did is they changed the standards necessary for prosecution 70 years later and reopended the witch hunt for people who, up until they changed that standard, were peaceful, law abiding citizens. Now, they want to send these people to jail.

Am I worried about something? You bet I am.

I served in the Army during Operation Desert storm. During that time, I didn't do anything that would be considered a war crime but, who is to say that 70 odd years in the future, some ICC tribunal may decide that just my participation in the invasion of Iraq makes me guilty of some crime against humanity.

As a result of my participation in that invasion, Iraq was placed under a sanctions regime that cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives from starvation, poor medical care and untreated water.

I was just a soldier following orders who thought I was doing my partiotic duty by liberating the people of Kuwait. What happened afterward is a crying shame and a crime against humanity. Who is to say that future generations may not try to hold me accountable for the part I played in that crime?


edit on 10/5/11 by FortAnthem because:




Well, they might. You never know. The victors hold war crimes trials for the vanquished (Saddam). You can relax though in your heart. I forgive you. I know you were young and impressionable. That you were lied to about the justification for invading a foreign sovereign nation. That since you have realized this and are feeling that other "Gulf War Syndrome" for having participated. So do I. I worked at a defense contractor company and paid taxes which makes me every bit as culpable. I am ashamed sometimes nowadays to be an american but put that awareness in the light of having been duped to go along. I bet we never to that again, eh?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimithae
 


Yes. SS officers ran each camp to their fitting. The many guards that took orders from them did not.

History lesson. Not every solider that was in a camp was a SS officer. FYI



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I really don't see the point in rounding up a bunch of old blokes and chastising them for war time crimes when, surely as time has progressed facts will be blurred and any witness testimony will surely be subject to serious questioning due to the time that has lapsed.

To what purpose will it serve? Surely the perpetrators would all die in prison, maybe it's what they deserve? As for rehabilitation- that is something to deter future offences...how many of them have opened Auschwitz style camps since the end of the war?

I honestly am still undecided where I stand on this- let me make it clear that I'm no Nazi sympathiser though.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
The whole case of John Demjanjuk is a travesty of justice. This case has been going on since the late 70's. He beat his case in Israel but these idiots couldn't quit. I believe he lives in a nursing home in Germany while the appeal process is going on. This type of thing really makes me ignore anything related to the holocaust.

John Demjanjuk



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
This is kind of funny man. COME ON MODS, TAKE CARE OF THIS GUY, DELETE ALL THE CRAP! Then we can get back to our wanton foolery, yes!
edit on 5-10-2011 by RadarMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545
reply to post by CaptGizmo
 


No, I didn't forget that part. The people that were ORDERED to be at those camps,

"I was just following orders" is not a defense against war crimes. There's really nothing more that needs to be said. Let the courts determine the facts of the situation and whether there are any mitigating circumstances.


It was an order that they got, they didn't have any choice.

You always have a choice. And those choices have consequences. Some people have been avoiding the consequences of their choices for decades, but consequences have a way of catching up to you.


LIke it was pointed out, you don't know what will happen in 70 years, you start with this now, and who knows, it could back to bite American soldiers later on.

So we shouldn't let Germans prosecute German war crimes because Americans might some day be prosecuted for war crimes? Why don't we, as Americans, just try not to commit war crimes? Then we won't have to worry about it.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Depends on your view of justice.

If you feel people not directly involved, but simply turned a blind eye, are criminals, then yes, they should be prosecuted.

If, on the other hand, you believe only those directly involved are criminals, then they shouldn't.

I think Christ said, what you didn't do for them you didn't do for me, so the first one might be correct.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Sounds like a bizzare jobs making plan. The people that have done the searching for the last 70 years don't want to lose their cash cow so lets change the rules so i can still travel the world for free



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


The problem with this whole thing is that they keep expanding the definition of what is guilty in regards to the "holocaust". Now, they want to start persecuting on the basis of "guilt by association".

Immediately after the war, the peope responsible for the killings WERE prosecuted and it was required that evidence be produced that they had, indeed, taken part in the killing. Now, they want to go after people just because they were assocated with the "holocaust" in some way, regardless of whether they were personally responsible for any deaths.

After they persecute all the prison guards, who will be next? The conductors of the trains taking the boxcars to Auschwitz, or maybe they guy who worked on the loading dock at the factory where they made the poison gas?

Once you start guilt by association, whole populations become branded as criminals and, soon they will be saying that everyone who lived in Germany at that time is guilty of the "holocaust". Then, they'll go on to indict the whole population of Europe and, maybe even America because we didn't do enough to stop it from happening.

You prosecute the people for whom you have hard evidence against proving that they have comitted a crime. If you don't have the evidence, changing the burden of proof in order to obtain a conviction (especially 70 years later) sets a dangerous prescedent that can be used to brand anyone and everyone as a criminal in the eyes of the law.


edit on 10/6/11 by FortAnthem because:




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I think it's outrageous to say that any "guard" attached to a camp is guilty of genocide.
Since the Final Solution began in 1942-45 they are talking about thousands of people who may have been shifted from post to post, and while one sees much of the stereotype of the higher ranking Nazis involved in the extermination living in luxury, this was not the case for ordinary soldiers, many of whom were sent to the East (where most of the extermination took place) as a punishment.
Some of these camps were complex, with extermination camps, prisoner of war and labor camps/factories attached. They will have to be very specific by what they mean by "guards" in "extermination camps".

Are they only going after Germans who worked in actual extermination in modern Germany?
There were Nazi sympathizers, anti-Semites and even equivalent parties over most of Europe.
What about all the people who enforced the ghettos in major eastern European cities?
Some of these people were perhaps more guilty of atrocities than some soldier marching along a fence.
The fact that some of those involved in the extermination chose deferments to other posts is now highlighted to suggest that everyone always had a choice in the matter, but this looks past the elitism of the "Sonderkommandos".

Our generation was shown the footage of specific camp guards being beaten and executed, and even the surrounding German population (millions of whom were silently put into concentration camps after the war).
I'm all for justice and probing to expand our historical knowledge.
If this is just a tribunal without immediate prison sentences it could be positive.
If they can still find the odd sadistic stereotype who really directly commanded the Kapo inmates to do their dirty work that would be justice.
But I somehow doubt it.
I had German grandparents and all the men died in the 1990s.
Watching these documentaries on the last Nazis (most of which aren't even German) is often just pathetic.
None of these people ever admit to any wrong-doing, and in their own minds they probably believe that.
So one would have to interrogate people in their 90s based on what?
Living eyewitness accounts by people of a similar age?
Although eyewitnesses aren't even mentioned here.
They are guilty simply for being at a certain place at a certain time!
That sets a dangerous precedent for foot-soldiers everywhere.

Seeing these very old and frail people put on trial is going to fuel resentment and holocaust denialism.
If they are innocent of any atrocity they will downplay the monstrosity of the holocaust by speaking the truth.
If they are guilty of a chosen atrocity then they will lie and downplay the monstrosity of the holocaust.
But they seem to be guilty already simply for having been posted at a specific camp over the 3 years of the Final Solution.
Have the real Nazis that the Allies whisked away and protected under Operation Paperclip finally expired, and they can now go after the rank and file without any embarrassing revelations?

This reverberates around the world to all people who had wars, oppression and apparent settlements and reconciliations.
I wonder how many decades it will take before every white South African that was alive before 1994 will be shoved into prison.
Especially now that all the true (and largely unrepentant) apartheid leaders who enjoyed ANC protection via a secret deal are dead or very old.
I guess somehow historic atrocities must be kept alive, especially when the victimized become the new oppressors, and they need a historic excuse to justify their current crimes.

edit on 6-10-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join