originally posted by: PiratesCut
a reply to: Uknownparadox
There is ALWAYS a choice!
ah, the call of the completely ignorant.
so much choice in Nazi Germany. well i guess she had the same choice as millions of Germans, do it or have one or more of the following done when
caught, end up in the camps themselves, get shot, get tortured (although this last one you had the best chance of surviving, since after being badly
tortured, sometimes for weeks, they might let you go home if they felt you were broken enough not to cause anymore problems). that was the reality.
everything i have seen says 1943, as an 18 year old. guess what, in 1943 women in Germany were conscripted
into the military. and since females
typically didn't do front line service, other than things like nurses, they filled other roles to free up the men to fight, especially roles like
,and radio/communications positions. so how much choice do conscripted personal get in what they do and where? typically none,
they are sent where they are sent. and what is the penalty for desertion
again? oh that's right, things like being shot, tortured, and/or put
into the camps as inmates.
to be honest even if she volunteered to work, just how much choice do you think she had about where and what she was doing? do you thing they gave her
and everyone else a free choice of what they did and where? "hey we got this opening in a death camp, do you want it?*
the reality is she likely had no choice, nor say in where she worked. and of course we cant forget that being 18 in 1943 means that she would have
been completely indoctrinated (brainwashed), at the minimum since she was 12 years old. and not just through school, which of course was mandatory,
with mandatory attendance. but also a participating member of the league of German girls, the female version of the Hitler youth program, also
mandatory participation and membership.
there is no way she should be persecuted
for "war crimes", just because she happened to work in the office of a camp. especially since she even
gave evidence at the war crimes trials against those who actually were war criminals. if she actually even did personally
commit any such
crimes, such as personally killing prisoners in the camps (remember it was far more than just Jews), then why wasn't she tried at that time, right
after the war? why wait well over 70 years to do so?
no, this is just a political stunt, and nothing more. basically charging someone, anyone, to charge someone and keep the anger going. what is next?
charge the kid that was forced to work as a janitor of the office? after all they would be just as guilty of war crimes
, or since we are
running out of people who were adults at the time, how about the kids of those that worked at the camps? after all this is not about any actual