91-year-old woman charged over 260,000 Auschwitz deaths

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Sounds to me if she is guilty of anything then she done so indirectly, just like the people who built those bombs. War is hell and full of atrocities. If we were to hold everyone accountable for the things they do at the bequest if higher powers durring time if conflict and unrest our world would full of nothing but gaols.

Seems it's rather about closure for the victims. Albeit, rather it's a little to late to bring justice. She's near the end of her life, likely won't see prison but that remainder, if sound of mind, is to weigh on her, family, etc.

Don't forget many Nazis were brought to the US. They were not held accountable and given careers, money, etc.


One Case:

OSIJEK, Croatia (AP) — Former Auschwitz guard Jakob Denzinger lived the American dream. His plastics company in the Rust Belt town of Akron, Ohio, thrived. By the late 1980s, he had acquired the trappings of success: a Cadillac DeVille and a Lincoln Town Car, a lakefront home, investments in oil and real estate.

Others:

Among those who benefited:
—armed SS troops who guarded the Nazi network of camps where millions of Jews perished.
—an SS guard who took part in the brutal liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland that killed as many as 13,000 Jews.
—a Nazi collaborator who engineered the arrest and execution of thousands of Jews in Poland.
—a German rocket scientist accused of using slave labor to build the V-2 rocket that pummeled London. He later won NASA's highest honor for helping to put a man on the moon.

Source

So many old people escape justice by the very sentence "what possible good can charging this person do".

If they did the crime, then dodged taking the heat for it for decades, they should absolutely pay the cost and take the consequences for their actions.

People shouldn't escape justice just because they're old.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

How would you feel if the media were portraying you as a mass murderer and all you did was send messages by radio all day, she wasn't in combat, she wasn't gassing anyone.

Yes, just "doing her job", in the SS, at Auschwitz.

Sorry, (imo) there may be some "innocents" in the SS elsewhere, juuust maybe. But not at, in or any where near Auschwitz. Then theres the after all this time factor, her job description, the guilt of Germany, etc. I thought the pic was her, looking defiant after all this time.

I realize I got the photo wrong, that isn't her.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Vasa Croe

She was in the SS...in 1944....you think she didn't know what was going on in a death camp that she worked at for 3 months?

It could be she was never in the death camp. There were three Auschwitz camps two were forced labor and the other was the death camp. So it's very possible she never stepped foot in the death camp. These "Nazi hunters" are just using peoples ignorance of those facts to be able to keep charging people with murder.

Ha..I almost spat my gatorade on myself. Wait....so you are all for giving forced labor camps the go ahead? Awesome.....let's start rounding up the illegals! No need to pay them anymore and it is all good as long as they are not death camps.

So it's ok to charge a person for working in a labor camp for the deaths of people she had nothing to do with? So you have no problem with people being falsely accused? So much for justice.

I'm basing my stance from the story that the prosecutor has ample proof of her involvement. Where are you getting your falsely accused stance from?

Have they shown any proof that she actually killed anyone? If not then she shouldn't be charged with killing anyone.

I would also like to note that it has never been shown that Hitler himself killed anyone directly. Not that I am excusing any of his heinous crimes, but based on your question, I felt it pertinent to note that.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

those maybe the official roles, but it is also known that many who went there never made into the role books. they came straight off the train and into the chambers and then the ovens.

from the wiki like i say it's fast, and has footnotes and bibliography. that you can go and check.

Death toll
Hungarian Jewish children and an elderly woman on the way to the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau (1944). ]Many of the very young and very old were murdered immediately upon arrival and were never registered.[153] The exact number of victims at Auschwitz is difficult to fix with certainty, as many prisoners were never registered and much evidence was destroyed by the SS in the final days of the war.[153] As early as 1942, Himmler visited the camp and ordered that "all mass graves were to be opened and the corpses burned. In addition the ashes were to be disposed of in such a way that it would be impossible at some future time to calculate the number of corpses burned."[154]
Death Toll.

here is a brief little paper or summary that argues against the high number, that gives a much more higher number than your source.

During the war crimes trials, Höss was was asked if it was true that he had no exact numbers because he had been forbidden to compile them, and he agreed. He also agreed that Adolf Eichmann had told him that that more than two million people had been exterminated there. (von Lang, 120)
How many people died at Auschwitz?

the above came from this site. The Nizkor Project, also on the page linked above is a link titled (See auschwitz IFZ.report)
this is a official death toll from all the camps given by the Institut Fuer Zeitgeschicthe (Institute
for Contemporary History) in Munich, Germany, yea i know biased source.


Höss later wrote, again from the wiki above,

Later he wrote, "I regard two and a half million far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities".[157] Gerald Reitlinger's 1953 book The Final Solution estimated the number killed at 800,000 to 900,000,[158] and Raul Hilberg's 1961 work The Destruction of the European Jews estimated the number killed at a maximum of 1,000,000 Jewish victims.[159]

again from the IFZ report.

Auschwitz-Birkenau (in the formerly polish, in 1939 adjoined to the "Reich" upper eastern Silesian area, south eastern of Kattowitz): The extermination camp in Birkenau, established in the second half of 1941, was joined to the concentration camp Auschwitz, existing since May 1940. From January 1942 on in five gas chambers and from the end of June 1943 in four additional large gassing-rooms gassings with Zyklon B have been undertaken. Up until November 1944 more than one million Jews and at least 4000 gypsies have been murdered by gas

we have testimony from guards, officers, the commanding officer of Auschwitz Höss(who more than anyone had reasons to lie about the number), and leaders that were on trail that give higher numbers than your source.

there are even more credible sources that argue against the 6 million number, that give a number close to this and refute the claims of your source.

The Holocaust is essentially a religious narrative, a cult of the dead. They've already got their shrines and temples in the form of museums and memorials, they've got ecclesiastical texts and literature, and they've got clergymen and canon law. It follows that they also need examples of unrepentant sinners being punished.

I understand punishing those truly responsible, but this is a sort of zealousness that goes beyond justice.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Manson murdered two people Gary Hinman and Donald Shea. So your comparison is kind of useless huh?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Vasa Croe

She was in the SS...in 1944....you think she didn't know what was going on in a death camp that she worked at for 3 months?

It could be she was never in the death camp. There were three Auschwitz camps two were forced labor and the other was the death camp. So it's very possible she never stepped foot in the death camp. These "Nazi hunters" are just using peoples ignorance of those facts to be able to keep charging people with murder.

Ha..I almost spat my gatorade on myself. Wait....so you are all for giving forced labor camps the go ahead? Awesome.....let's start rounding up the illegals! No need to pay them anymore and it is all good as long as they are not death camps.

So it's ok to charge a person for working in a labor camp for the deaths of people she had nothing to do with? So you have no problem with people being falsely accused? So much for justice.

I'm basing my stance from the story that the prosecutor has ample proof of her involvement. Where are you getting your falsely accused stance from?

Have they shown any proof that she actually killed anyone? If not then she shouldn't be charged with killing anyone.

I would also like to note that it has never been shown that Hitler himself killed anyone directly. Not that I am excusing any of his heinous crimes, but based on your question, I felt it pertinent to note that.

Is Hitler being charged with crimes he didn't commit?

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Manson murdered two people Gary Hinman and Donald Shea. So your comparison is kind of useless huh?

He never touched them....he ordered them murdered....Manson did not do it himself, so that makes your statement incorrect.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Vasa Croe

She was in the SS...in 1944....you think she didn't know what was going on in a death camp that she worked at for 3 months?

It could be she was never in the death camp. There were three Auschwitz camps two were forced labor and the other was the death camp. So it's very possible she never stepped foot in the death camp. These "Nazi hunters" are just using peoples ignorance of those facts to be able to keep charging people with murder.

Ha..I almost spat my gatorade on myself. Wait....so you are all for giving forced labor camps the go ahead? Awesome.....let's start rounding up the illegals! No need to pay them anymore and it is all good as long as they are not death camps.

So it's ok to charge a person for working in a labor camp for the deaths of people she had nothing to do with? So you have no problem with people being falsely accused? So much for justice.

I'm basing my stance from the story that the prosecutor has ample proof of her involvement. Where are you getting your falsely accused stance from?

Have they shown any proof that she actually killed anyone? If not then she shouldn't be charged with killing anyone.

I would also like to note that it has never been shown that Hitler himself killed anyone directly. Not that I am excusing any of his heinous crimes, but based on your question, I felt it pertinent to note that.

Is Hitler being charged with crimes he didn't commit?

He couldn't be charged with anything...he was dead before charges were brought. So does that make him innocent?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Vasa Croe

She was in the SS...in 1944....you think she didn't know what was going on in a death camp that she worked at for 3 months?

It could be she was never in the death camp. There were three Auschwitz camps two were forced labor and the other was the death camp. So it's very possible she never stepped foot in the death camp. These "Nazi hunters" are just using peoples ignorance of those facts to be able to keep charging people with murder.

Ha..I almost spat my gatorade on myself. Wait....so you are all for giving forced labor camps the go ahead? Awesome.....let's start rounding up the illegals! No need to pay them anymore and it is all good as long as they are not death camps.

So it's ok to charge a person for working in a labor camp for the deaths of people she had nothing to do with? So you have no problem with people being falsely accused? So much for justice.

I'm basing my stance from the story that the prosecutor has ample proof of her involvement. Where are you getting your falsely accused stance from?

Have they shown any proof that she actually killed anyone? If not then she shouldn't be charged with killing anyone.

I would also like to note that it has never been shown that Hitler himself killed anyone directly. Not that I am excusing any of his heinous crimes, but based on your question, I felt it pertinent to note that.

Is Hitler being charged with crimes he didn't commit?

He couldn't be charged with anything...he was dead before charges were brought. So does that make him innocent?

No but what is the difference between Hitler and Manson when compared to this woman? Those two were in charge of their groups so they get charged with the crimes that their followers committed due to them instructing them to do so. This woman was in charge of no one so she shouldn't be charged. This trail has absolutely nothing to do with justice it is nothing but an act of vengeance.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Vasa Croe

She was in the SS...in 1944....you think she didn't know what was going on in a death camp that she worked at for 3 months?

It could be she was never in the death camp. There were three Auschwitz camps two were forced labor and the other was the death camp. So it's very possible she never stepped foot in the death camp. These "Nazi hunters" are just using peoples ignorance of those facts to be able to keep charging people with murder.

Ha..I almost spat my gatorade on myself. Wait....so you are all for giving forced labor camps the go ahead? Awesome.....let's start rounding up the illegals! No need to pay them anymore and it is all good as long as they are not death camps.

So it's ok to charge a person for working in a labor camp for the deaths of people she had nothing to do with? So you have no problem with people being falsely accused? So much for justice.

I'm basing my stance from the story that the prosecutor has ample proof of her involvement. Where are you getting your falsely accused stance from?

Have they shown any proof that she actually killed anyone? If not then she shouldn't be charged with killing anyone.

I would also like to note that it has never been shown that Hitler himself killed anyone directly. Not that I am excusing any of his heinous crimes, but based on your question, I felt it pertinent to note that.

Is Hitler being charged with crimes he didn't commit?

He couldn't be charged with anything...he was dead before charges were brought. So does that make him innocent?

No but what is the difference between Hitler and Manson when compared to this woman? Those two were in charge of their groups so they get charged with the crimes that their followers committed due to them instructing them to do so. This woman was in charge of no one so she shouldn't be charged. This trail has absolutely nothing to do with justice it is nothing but an act of vengeance.

I guess we will have the opportunity to find out just how much she had to do with it once the story is finally in the open. Until then, your guessing has the same credibility as mine. I am sure there is a difference. You simply stated that she didnt kill anyone, therefore could not be guilty of it....I pointed out the obvious fallacy in that statement.

You'll have to pardon my confusion here, but this charge seems a tad irrational - but then again we're only hearing blurbs from a news report and not a full testimony on exactly how entrenched this woman was in her position during the time.

As others have pointed out, conscription was mandatory during this time and the propaganda machine had been in full force for a while, not to mention the self-preservation instincts (and for her family) might have been in full force . There may be more to her side of the story than mistakenly believing she was simply overjoyed and enthusiastic to be there in any capacity.

For all we know she may have spent her life after the war trying to deal with her involvement after the realities of the camps surfaced in light of Allied Liberation. Not to mention most of those radio codes were heavily encrypted back then and she may have just be relaying the number-letter sequences with no insight into the nature of the messages beyond that level.

Sorry, I simply don't have enough evidence to comment further at this time.

a reply to: seagull

She probably won't be found innocent of wrongdoing....they are prosecuting her on moral grounds and complicity by the fact she was there not that she killed anyone not that she ordered any killing but because she basically worked there and is still alive for a handy show trial by the Zionist elite just to make sure people never forget what they went through, which in my mind is their way of justifying their own actions in Palestine

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

So... instead of saying "good to judge everyone involved" you say "it must be the zionist elite driving Germany to this!"?

Yeah.. No.
How about you take a close look at the hearings in court (should be found on kn-online.de, maybe with some English translation) and see for yourself if justice is served rightly.


Sometimes I feel like quitting this forum!..

- Taking in refugees? Wrong, because *panic*.
- Prosecuting a member of the SS in a KZ? Wrong, because *zionism made us do this*

How about *we* are doing this the humanitarian way?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

sweetheart I've followed most of the "hearings" all my life and I'm now 55 so I'm not some kiddie with no knowledge of what I'm talking about.
I now feel that due to lack of evidence of actual wrongdoing, prosecuting people on moral grounds of complicity for simply being there or following orders is wrong and if it applies in these cases, then it should be rigorously applied in the hundreds of other cases that have happened since

a reply to: dreamingawake

Seems to me its rather to late for even closure. As to the Nazis being relocated to the US and other nations via Operation Paper clip and the like post WW2, this is very true. But end of the day the real culprits were the bankers who funded both sides of the conflict. If the blame lies anywhere its at there doorstep considering the profit and power amassed.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Well, sweety (as we are so close bonded right now, righto?), you don't know what she did in the KZ. I don't know what she did, either. Someone seems to do so. And to her misery that seems to be the prosecutor.

She will have all the time she needs to explain her role in that KZ in court.

Those hearings you claim to have heard seem to have failed to show you that an accused is still deemed innocent till found guilty.

I had a grandfather who was a *proud* nazi, member of Waffen-SS, and to my knowledge he never spend a year in prison for this, even though he never "worked" at a KZ, he was a trainer for sailplanes and avionik to the best of my knowledge. He was a POW and came home some years later (early '50s), but was only detained for "normal warfare", as far as I know. (After he died of natural causes it was quite a pain to clear up his appartement and get rid of some quite.. awkward.. legacy items).

I think it is for the best for all of mankind to make a clean sweep on German SS members. Lets have a ruling on each and everyone of them!

I got to page 2 before I had to point out to all those who were saying "she probably had no choice", or "if she didn't do as she was told she'd be shot/raped" the following:

She was Waffen SS. You did not get conscripted into the SS (with the exception of the Auxiliary SS towards the end of the War, who weren't regarded as SS members anyway), you volunteered and you did so because you wholeheartedly believed in the Nazi cause. In fact, the SS wasn't even an arm of the German Army, it started life as the militant arm of the Nazi party and grew from there, enforcing Nazi doctrine.

If anything, this lady was more likely to shoot you for not following orders than to disobey them herself.