Auschwitz Nazi Doctor to be tried for Murders Committed during WWII

[BSM1]

What does that mean?
Precisely?

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

The law is not there to punish nor prosecute anyone for any of the reasons listed. The law says if you break me this is what will happen to you; that is justice. The other things you mention may come after the fact but first and foremost justice must be served.

 

[columbus]

The law is not there to punish nor prosecute anyone for any of the reasons listed. The law says if you break me this is what will happen to you; that is justice. The other things you mention may come after the fact but first and foremost justice must be served.

I don't see a clear meaning for Justice.
If it's just what some long dead Jew thinks should be done then I will have no trouble ignoring Justice.
I live in the 21st century. I want better explanations than you have given for a concept as important as Justice.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

I don't see a clear meaning for Justice.
If it's just what some long dead Jew thinks should be done then I will have no trouble ignoring Justice.
I live in the 21st century. I want better explanations than you have given for a concept as important as Justice.
Tom

There were a couple of things I wanted to say about your post but let's keep this civil. This has nothing to do with "some long dead Jew", this has to do with defining us as a society. The unwarranted slaughter of over six million people should not be written off as ancient history. My parents lived through this era and my father fought in that war, so for many of us this still fresh. If you don't think someone who was implicit in this horror should not be tried and brought to justice if found guilty simply because of the passage of time and the religion of the victim, then I don't know what to say.

 

[columbus]

If you don't think someone who was implicit in this horror should not be tried and brought to justice if found guilty simply because of the passage of time and the religion of the victim, then I don't know what to say.

I asked you what you meant by Justice. You did not say.

Call me a religious person if you must, but I believe that vengeance is the Lords! Not yours. I don't care what you think.
I described my principles. What I mean by human justice. My principles do not include human vengeance.

So, tell me what you mean. What do you mean by "justice"?
Tom

 

[BSM1]

I asked you what you meant by Justice. You did not say.

Call me a religious person if you must, but I believe that vengeance is the Lords! Not yours. I don't care what you think.
I described my principles. What I mean by human justice. My principles do not include human vengeance.

So, tell me what you mean. What do you mean by "justice"?
Tom

I thought I had. Laws are written and define. Consequences of breaking these laws are also well defined. This is justice. For instance, the law says that punishment for murder could be death. If you commit legally defined murder you could have your own life ended. This is justice. If you are punished beyond or differently than the defined boundaries of a crime this is not justice. For instance, a judge cannot sentence you to be drawn and quartered for any crime. This goes outside the prescribed law and this is not justice. Also, justice has nothing to with personalities; justice is, and should be, totally left to the purview of a legal system. It should not matter who you are "You do the crime, you do the time". Hope this helps.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Why waste taxpayer resources?

I agree. Its time to put this to rest into the annals of history.

It's pretty safe to say there are not too many left from that generation, and those remaining won't be around for much longer.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Nazi apologism is the most despicable thing on the planet.

Which is not what I was doing — just pointing out that whether you are punished for slaughtering the innocent depends on who you are.

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.

The belief that you do not target civilians was developed in the Middle Ages and universally accepted by the 18th century. The fact that the first 3 Geneva Conventions didn't discuss it was, as I said, because it was seen as obvious. The idea of bombing German civilians was put forward by Frederick Lindermann and accepted by his friend Winston Churchill in secret — they knew what decent people would have thought. Devotees of Wikipedia should read the article on Lindermann — his opinions were much the same as the Nazis!

 

[RRex]

Killing and raping civilians is a common war tactic. It wasn't unique to the Nazis.

 

[Wirey]

The idea of bombing German civilians was put forward by Frederick Lindermann and accepted by his friend Winston Churchill in secret — they knew what decent people would have thought. Devotees of Wikipedia should read the article on Lindermann — his opinions were much the same as the Nazis!

Guernica.

 

[Nietzsche]

Killing and raping civilians is a common war tactic. It wasn't unique to the Nazis.

No, it wasn't unique to them. What was unique was that they had a ****ing order from Hitler to shoot civilians. Look up the "Kommisar Order". Where there is a partisan, there is a Jew, and where there is a Jew there is a partisan.

 

[RRex]

I don't get hysterical over it. It is what it is.

Stalin killed exponentially more people, but no one demonizes him.

What is the difference? Dead bodies are dead bodies.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

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.

I don't fault the servicemen that nuked Japan, I was only illustrating that there is a double standard when applying morality in regards to trying Germans who had benign roles in "concentrations camps".

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Killing and raping civilians is a common war tactic. It wasn't unique to the Nazis.

Correct. However, some people have emotional issues exasperated by decades of "da nazis are da purest evil" propaganda.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

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

According to you. The Bolsheviks were responsible for many more deaths ( Who were the Bolsheviks?), The Mongols killed 10's of millions of people and the very holy books of the Jews themselves document the slaughter of men, women, children and even infants. Not to mention enslaving female children as sex slaves.

We don't need you telling anyone how to formulate or share their opinions.

 

[RRex]

I've applied some Ignore. That should do the trick.



I can't take hostile. Not today. No.

 

[Nietzsche]

According to you. The Bolsheviks were responsible for many more deaths ( Who were the Bolsheviks?), The Mongols killed 10's of millions of people and the very holy books of the Jews themselves document the slaughter of men, women, children and even infants. Not to mention enslaving female children as sex slaves.

We don't need you telling anyone how to formulate or share their opinions.

It's not about "number" of deaths. It's about the purpose behind them. Stalin, and before him those leading the Bolsheviks(and to be fair the Mensheviks, the Whites, the Greens, the Blacks and everyone else involved in the Russian Civil War) killed for pragmatic reasons. Like it or not, their slaughters were for goals that make sense on paper. Mongols did the same. If your argument is against the Red Army, that's a whole other kettle of fish that can only be understood when you put yourself in their shoes.

The Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union, at in the first hours of the war were instructed to shoot anyone who resisted, or you had even the scantest proof in being a potential resistor. Then you kill their non-Aryan looking children and steal the rest to enrich the blut of the Vaterland. Lebensborn, look it up. The lowest level soldier could get away with doing anything to the Soviet civilians. Rapes, murder, torture.

When the Red Army got the chance, it decided to pay them back for the pain. Doesn't make it right, but the Nazis were the ones who threw out the accepted rules of warfare.

The Soviets killed people to achieve a tangible purpose. The Nazis killed people to achieve the retarded notion of "racial purity", where you could be shot because there was a Jewish guy six generations back in your family tree.

 

[leibowde84]

What is this supposed to express? If frustration, why?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Killing and raping civilians is a common war tactic. It wasn't unique to the Nazis.

Those are just the tip of the ice berg. This guy the OP is about is responsible for being a medical assistant in Auschwitz, where horrendous medical "experiments" into twins, genetics, the absolute limits of the human body, and what you can and can't do with it that were conducted without anesthesia and where people were used as human guinea pigs. It's very much a very ugly story as to what can happen when a researcher goes bad.

What is this supposed to express? If frustration, why?

Well, with a response that includes "we cannot allow...Germans to forget..." the frustration seems appropriate because NO ONE will let the Germans forget. They'd probably love to forget about that embarrassing stain on their proud history, but the terms "Nazi" and "Hitler" are still very much in common use, and not only that, some people still do not trust Germans because of it. German history is very rich with culture and worth boasting about, but German pride is often associated with the Nazis, and they don't get to do national pride like other nations (it may be why they really love sports because it's about the only time they get to be that way).

 

[leibowde84]

Those are just the tip of the ice berg. This guy the OP is about is responsible for being a medical assistant in Auschwitz, where horrendous medical "experiments" into twins, genetics, the absolute limits of the human body, and what you can and can't do with it that were conducted without anesthesia and where people were used as human guinea pigs. It's very much a very ugly story as to what can happen when a researcher goes bad.

Well, with a response that includes "we cannot allow...Germans to forget..." the frustration seems appropriate because NO ONE will let the Germans forget. They'd probably love to forget about that embarrassing stain on their proud history, but the terms "Nazi" and "Hitler" are still very much in common use, and not only that, some people still do not trust Germans because of it. German history is very rich with culture and worth boasting about, but German pride is often associated with the Nazis, and they don't get to do national pride like other nations (it may be why they really love sports because it's about the only time they get to be that way).

Fair enough, but it seems like a bit of a cop out. Germans should have pride, but they have to figure out a way to do it without face palming everytime the most influential war in western history is mentioned. It's more important to fight national socialism globally.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Absolutely try the ****er. It's not just a matter of whether he's currently a threat. It's about sending a message, and even pursuing an ideal of justice. We have to show that people can't get away with atrocities like that - especially if he thinks he's safe in his old age.