Auschwitz Nazi Doctor to be tried for Murders Committed during WWII

[Twilight Hue]

It would have to be a military tribunal. It's not a civilian matter.

 

[BSM1]

He should be tried, but I'm not really a fan of excessively focusing on the Holocaust as if it was categorically worse than all the other atrocities humans have committed upon each other.

Maybe not, but if I post the photographs of the small concentration camp my father's outfit liberated during the war than you might find yourself ranking it near the top of the list.

 

[psychoslice]

I think its far to long, and being 92, he wouldn't even be the same man he was way back then, so no he shouldn't be tried.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Maybe not, but if I post the photographs of the small concentration camp my father's outfit liberated during the war than you might find yourself ranking it near the top of the list.

I've seen the pictures and film footage. I've seen a lot of things.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

I know you're just trolling here, but I'll bite.

Why should anyone be hunting the airmen who destroyed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden?

Didn't the servicemen know they were intentionally attacking a civilian target? Not to mention, those servicemen directly committed the mass-murder.

In most of these "Nazi" trials, the people being tried had no direct ties to the killing. The one here was a orderly, one before him a janitor, one before that a guard.

Trying Dr Mengele is one thing, this is really stretching it.

 

[metis]

It was decided at Nuremberg that any that were involved in genocide could be tried without there being a statute of limitations, largely because trying to determine who was involved and then catching them would be very difficult.

 

[BSM1]

Didn't the servicemen know they were intentionally attacking a civilian target? Not to mention, those servicemen directly committed the mass-murder.

In most of these "Nazi" trials, the people being tried had no direct ties to the killing. The one here was a orderly, one before him a janitor, one before that a guard.

Trying Dr Mengele is one thing, this is really stretching it.

Actually I see your point. However I don't think you'll find much sympathy for those even remotely involved in this atrocity. It may have been better for these low level types if the had 'fessed up years ago and asked for mercy and understanding.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was decided at Nuremberg that any that were involved in genocide could be tried without there being a statute of limitations, largely because trying to determine who was involved and then catching them would be very difficult.

People like this Zafke not only made one largest and nastiest blots in history, they also made a rather big one in science and medicine. And he assisted in the torturing and murder of over 3,000 people, or more than 100 a day. Just because he's managed to remain hidden for about three-quarters of a century doesn't mean we should just let him go.
Perhaps now that he's been revealed will be punishment enough. Now the world knows who he is and what he's done. He get's to live out his final years as the Devil Incarnate.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I know you're just trolling here, but I'll bite. Why should anyone be hunting the airmen who destroyed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden?

I never troll. I take things seriously, as you should guess from the absence of a silly name or a silly picture.

Civilised people do not deliberately target civilians in war. The Fourth Geneva Convention on the treatment of civilians was not adopted until 1949, but before the 20th century no-one would have found it necessary.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Maybe not, but if I post the photographs of the small concentration camp my father's outfit liberated during the war than you might find yourself ranking it near the top of the list.

Some years ago, the BBC screened a history of the Red Cross. One retired official showed pictures that looked like dead concentration camp victims, but were actually German POWs deliberately starved to death in a US camp. He'd managed to get the camp closed, but the commandant and guards were never punished. After WW2, there was one law for the victors and one for the vanquished.

 

[Skwim]

I never troll. I take things seriously, as you should guess from the absence of a silly name or a silly picture.

Their absence doesn't signify anything. Some people use them, some don't.

Civilised people do not deliberately target civilians in war. The Fourth Geneva Convention on the treatment of civilians was not adopted until 1949,

Right. The targets were not civilians per se, as you imply, but the significance of the area in which they resided. Where civilians may have been a considered target-worthy is if their efforts directly contributed to the success of the enemy.

but before the 20th century no-one would have found it necessary.

Because before the 20th century it was never an issue. No one had the capability of such mass destruction. However, it should be noted that pillaging of enemy territory and the rape of enemy women and girls was not uncommon.

 

[Nietzsche]

Some years ago, the BBC screened a history of the Red Cross. One retired official showed pictures that looked like dead concentration camp victims, but were actually German POWs deliberately starved to death in a US camp. He'd managed to get the camp closed, but the commandant and guards were never punished. After WW2, there was one law for the victors and one for the vanquished.

Nazi apologism is the most despicable thing on the planet. I suggest you tread carefully.

 

[Wirey]

Didn't the servicemen know they were intentionally attacking a civilian target? Not to mention, those servicemen directly committed the mass-murder.

In most of these "Nazi" trials, the people being tried had no direct ties to the killing. The one here was a orderly, one before him a janitor, one before that a guard.

Trying Dr Mengele is one thing, this is really stretching it.

The servicemen attacking the cities were told they were aiming at industrial targets, which in a sense they were. The workers at an aircraft plant were as much a legitimate target as the machines they ran according to all of the theories of aerial warfare that existed at that time. The main effort of the air offensive was the interruption of wartime manufacturing. De-housing, killing, and exhausting the workforce was a legitimate war aim that was legal at the time. This kind of creative interpretation of history using moral codes developed after the fact (the Geneva Convention didn't specifically protect civilians until 1949) is dishonest and false. According to the law, and to the theories of their time, the actions of these soldiers were legal. When lawsuits were raised by the Japanese citizens harmed by Operation Meetinghouse against the Japanese government, everyone involved agreed that the US firebombing campaign was legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

From the section 'Postwar Politics:

However, in 2013, during his second term as prime minister, Abe's cabinet stated that the raids were "incompatible with humanitarianism, which is one of the foundations of international law", but also noted that it is difficult to argue that the raids were illegal under the international laws of the time.[32][33]

The people getting bombed knew they had it coming, but based on a new morality the people doing it were criminals? By that logic, every man in Western Europe between 700 AD and 1650 AD was a kidnapper because women had no legal recourses under law, so all people of European descent are the product of slavery based rape! Next.

 

[Skwim]

The servicemen attacking the cities were told they were aiming at industrial targets, which in a sense they were. The workers at an aircraft plant were as much a legitimate target as the machines they ran according to all of the theories of aerial warfare that existed at that time. The main effort of the air offensive was the interruption of wartime manufacturing. De-housing, killing, and exhausting the workforce was a legitimate war aim that was legal at the time. This kind of creative interpretation of history using moral codes developed after the fact (the Geneva Convention didn't specifically protect civilians until 1949) is dishonest and false. According to the law, and to the theories of their time, the actions of these soldiers were legal. When lawsuits were raised by the Japanese citizens harmed by Operation Meetinghouse against the Japanese government, everyone involved agreed that the US firebombing campaign was legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

From the section 'Postwar Politics:

However, in 2013, during his second term as prime minister, Abe's cabinet stated that the raids were "incompatible with humanitarianism, which is one of the foundations of international law", but also noted that it is difficult to argue that the raids were illegal under the international laws of the time.[32][33]

The people getting bombed knew they had it coming, but based on a new morality the people doing it were criminals? By that logic, every man in Western Europe between 700 AD and 1650 AD was a kidnapper because women had no legal recourses under law, so all people of European descent are the product of slavery based rape! Next.

Quite right. It's easy to fault past actions by current standards, but it's hardly fair. It's little different than faulting people years ago for driving faster than the current speed limit.

 

[RRex]

I view it as pointless. This guy will be in the grave shortly.

Why waste taxpayer resources?

 

[RRex]

Nazi apologism is the most despicable thing on the planet. I suggest you tread carefully.

So, no compassion for human beings who suffered?

Why does it matter what side they were on?

Suffering and deprivation is suffering and deprivation. It doesn't matter who it happens to.

 

[Nietzsche]

So, no compassion for human beings who suffered?

Why does it matter what side they were on?

Suffering and deprivation is suffering and deprivation. It doesn't matter who it happens to.

It's bad, yes. But it's also not remotely on the level of what happened in the Camps. The Allies did horrible things. But they couldn't top the Nazis on pure human depravity if they'd tried.

 

[columbus]

Actually I see your point. However I don't think you'll find much sympathy for those even remotely involved in this atrocity. It may have been better for these low level types if the had 'fessed up years ago and asked for mercy and understanding.

However, they didn't. Unsurprisingly.
I get the wish to finally make this guy suffer. It might have been indirect, but he helped cause one of the biggest moral disasters ever.
Since I am not sure what to think, I resort to my principles.
There are four normal reasons for pursuing and prosecuting and punishing people.
Public safety.
Rehabilitation.
Deterrence
Vengeance.

I don't see how any of the first three reasons are being served. That only leaves the fourth. And I don't believe in vengeance. Since the guy is not a danger, he is not going to be rehabilitated, and the Nazis are no longer a threat to the rest of us, I think it is better to let him die. Quietly, with everyone around him knowing what a scumbag he was several decades ago.
But not making him a bigger deal than he was at the time.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

However, they didn't. Unsurprisingly.
I get the wish to finally make this guy suffer. It might have been indirect, but he helped cause one of the biggest moral disasters ever.
Since I am not sure what to think, I resort to my principles.
There are four normal reasons for pursuing and prosecuting and punishing people.
Public safety.
Rehabilitation.
Deterrence
Vengeance.

I don't see how any of the first three reasons are being served. That only leaves the fourth. And I don't believe in vengeance. Since the guy is not a danger, he is not going to be rehabilitated, and the Nazis are no longer a threat to the rest of us, I think it is better to let him die. Quietly, with everyone around him knowing what a scumbag he was several decades ago.
But not making him a bigger deal than he was at the time.
Tom

Justice is notably missing from your list.

 

[columbus]

Justice is notably missing from your list.

What does that mean?
Precisely?

I don't mean vague abstractions. How is "Justice" different from the principles I listed?
Tom