Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 1 December, 2009 Share Posted 1 December, 2009 To continue to stand trial, or to just let him die from natural causes? In my opinion, even if he is knocking on death's door this scumbag deserves to be put through all this agony and suffering as it is nothing to what the prisoners at Sobibor endured. I remember a good programme the BBC put out some months ago about these last surviving prison guards and how they love to give it the 'old charming man' routine. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8386146.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8388334.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 1 December, 2009 Share Posted 1 December, 2009 Be careful with the word 'deserve'.... I saw that program, too, and while I thought it quite good, it, like many other things and people, seemed to assume guilt. I find these types of crime as abhorrent as anyone else, but getting emotive without considering rationality or evidence does nothing to distance oneself from the party that governed those prison commandants and guards. Would you believe that a Jewish conspiracy was trying to destroy Britain if TV told you so - and would you then say they deserve all they can get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 1 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 December, 2009 Be careful with the word 'deserve'.... I saw that program, too, and while I thought it quite good, it, like many other things and people, seemed to assume guilt. I find these types of crime as abhorrent as anyone else, but getting emotive without considering rationality or evidence does nothing to distance oneself from the party that governed those prison commandants and guards. Would you believe that a Jewish conspiracy was trying to destroy Britain if TV told you so - and would you then say they deserve all they can get? Are you suggesting that I informed my opinion purely on a TV show? If you're serious I find that rather offensive! Despite their best efforts, the Nazi's couldn't destory every peice of evidence about what they were up too and the identities of collaborators etc were always at some point going to fall into the hands of the allies. Consider evidence by all means, but his defence team seem to be ignoring the fact that the prosecution have in their possession his I.D card!! I don't think we should be 'going easy' on these people just because they are old! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 1 December, 2009 Share Posted 1 December, 2009 No, not suggesting that. Just saying that if it was a clear fact that Demjanjuk was guilty, he'd not be standing trial. I agree that guilt has nothing to do with age, but I would just say that I always think people should be cafeul around the term 'deserve' - first, because we are not always fully informed, certainly not at this point, as he may be innocent (regardless of ID - many workers at camps did have little choice, that is a regrettable fact, and some probably did all they could to get out or have a subtle positive influence. I'm not party to all the evidence, of course, but no-one should be convicted on circumstancial evidence alone, particularly when coupled with a generation revisiting those terrible times in an attempt to understand and gain closure, with few targets left) - and second, who are we to say what people deserve? If he did indeed play a role, does he deserve suffering? Who does that help now? Does he deserve death? Many have died, who perhaps deserved to live, and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 1 December, 2009 Share Posted 1 December, 2009 As someone who's against the death penalty, I'd have to say that not even his crimes (if he's found guilty) should lead to a death sentence. I'd also have wanted Eichmann not to have been executed by the Israelis, nor Goering and the others by the Nuremburg Trials. In my opinion, they would have had far greater deterrent value alive than dead, and could have reflected on their crimes in ways that would really have had impact outside of their prison walls. Demjanjuk is shamming. He's done it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 1 December, 2009 Share Posted 1 December, 2009 Kill him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 1 December, 2009 Share Posted 1 December, 2009 Very difficult subject to just shrug off with yes/no without examining the details closely. From one hand anyone who was working for a nazi Germany deserves terrible things to happen to them, but then if your country and a huge proportion of the population were working towards a nazi germany and you would be classed as an enemy if you did not, then it's a little bit harder to call. If he is Ivan the Terrible and was personally responsible for the deaths of many jews then yes, he should be tortured. Do we have enough significant evidence to prove this? I don't know. The whole war situation is very difficult to understand. Somewhat easier to understand if you put yourself in the place of a citizen in that country. I expect if your country was on its knees and a political party came along, strengthened your country and promised you a future being part of it, it would be a bit difficult to turn the opportunity down. Also the fact that I think a lot of people had become nazi's before they started war crimes makes it even harder! If he was Ivan he deserves to be personally made responsible for the deaths of thousands of jews, if he was just a nazi guard then he whatever all the other nazi guards got! I don't think there's enough clear-cut evidence that he was any more than a guard though. I guess because of the way war and laws work, as he's been found guilty he should continue trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 1 December, 2009 Share Posted 1 December, 2009 If he is Ivan the Terrible and was personally responsible for the deaths of many jews then yes, he should be tortured. Do we have enough significant evidence to prove this? I don't know. From what I understand (and I may be wrong) this trial isnt about establishing him as Ivan The Terrible from Treblinka; this one is about him working at 3 amps and being a member of an SS sub-unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Surely the time and vast amounts of money could be better spent elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 2 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 December, 2009 As someone who's against the death penalty, I'd have to say that not even his crimes (if he's found guilty) should lead to a death sentence. I'd also have wanted Eichmann not to have been executed by the Israelis, nor Goering and the others by the Nuremburg Trials. In my opinion, they would have had far greater deterrent value alive than dead, and could have reflected on their crimes in ways that would really have had impact outside of their prison walls. Demjanjuk is shamming. He's done it before. I don't think that high level Nazi's such as Goering and Eichmann would have felt any need to reflect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 From what I understand (and I may be wrong) this trial isnt about establishing him as Ivan The Terrible from Treblinka; this one is about him working at 3 amps and being a member of an SS sub-unit. You're correct Pancake. The issue I have with this trial is that his superiors in the camp have already been found not guilty, if he was just a foot soldier as alledged it's going to be hard to find him guilty is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Give the poor bloke his dignity to die FFS, it's a war at the end of the day, he was just doing his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 2 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Give the poor bloke his dignity to die FFS, it's a war at the end of the day, he was just doing his job. He didn't care about the 'dignity' of the prisoners did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 (edited) He didn't care about the 'dignity' of the prisoners did he? In light of what is leaked periodically from 'our' current conflicts would ask is dignity high on the list for prisoners of war ? Edited 2 December, 2009 by INFLUENCED.COM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Th guy who was convicted of mass terrorism in the UK was released on comapssionate grounds. What is the line here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Innocent until proven guilty is a concept not known to some people that have posted in this thread so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Give the poor bloke his dignity to die FFS, it's a war at the end of the day, he was just doing his job. That is an interesting angle because if he hadn't carried out his orders from Berlin what despicable fate would have befallen him. The whole issue is abhorrent and thankfully consigned to history and I would have thought that if he was acting on his superiors instructions he should show remorse for his actions and those of his country in a time of war when at times decency and humanity on both sides is suspended. IMO there was a time when this trial may have been appropriate but nearly 70 years on what will this achieve as most of those deeply affected by it would have passed on. Demjanjuk will soon meet his maker and let them be the ultimate judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Th guy who was convicted of mass terrorism in the UK was released on comapssionate grounds. What is the line here? The Lockerbie guy? There's a great deal of debate as to whether he was actually guilty anyway. Not that I can see what he has to do with the case being discussed here ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSaint Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Demjanjuk will soon meet his maker and let them be the ultimate judge. I don't see how digging up and confronting the remains of his now surely very dead mother is going to determine anything frankly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 The Lockerbie guy? There's a great deal of debate as to whether he was actually guilty anyway. Not that I can see what he has to do with the case being discussed here ... but he was found guilty and convicted of masss terrorism.. as for this guy, some say he is too fraile to be tried so to speak...compassion..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 That is an interesting angle because if he hadn't carried out his orders from Berlin what despicable fate would have befallen him. The whole issue is abhorrent and thankfully consigned to history and I would have thought that if he was acting on his superiors instructions he should show remorse for his actions and those of his country in a time of war when at times decency and humanity on both sides is suspended IMO there was a time when this trial may have been appropriate but nearly 70 years on what will this achieve as most of those deeply affected by it would have passed on. Demjanjuk will soon meet his maker and let them be the ultimate judge. Cant rely on that Im afraid, as they dont exist.... Also, under the Nuremberg Principles, it states (Principle IV) that.... "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". In the common parlance, this principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders' " http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 but he was found guilty and convicted of masss terrorism.. as for this guy, some say he is too fraile to be tried so to speak...compassion..? yes, but Megrahi (sp?) was found guilty on very dubious circumstances; many say he had the whole affair pinned on him so powers that be could they say they ' got their man'. That could have swayed their decision to release him to a great degree if true. That said, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of prosecuting this new fella. The point of how mistreated Iraqi people have been at the hands of our troops is an interesting one. Whilst it is hardly a direct comparison with genocide, it does make you realise that there are many guilty parties in war. This guy was carrying out pretty grim work with the other option of being killed I would have thought. Under similar circumstances, I would have thought that many of those people calling for his execution etc would have behaved in a similar manner to how he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Cant rely on that Im afraid, as they dont exist.... Also, under the Nuremberg Principles, it states (Principle IV) that.... "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". In the common parlance, this principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders' " http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390 I don't think it's a s simple as you make out. When a government are actively pursuing a system of mass genocide which popular opinion is in favour of, it seems morally dubious to later start pinning charges on staff members responsible for carrying out the duties. There 'moral choice' was probably "do your job or get killed". I wonder what you would have choosed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Should just be killed, at the very least he was a collaborator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 I don't think it's a s simple as you make out. When a government are actively pursuing a system of mass genocide which popular opinion is in favour of, it seems morally dubious to later start pinning charges on staff members responsible for carrying out the duties. There 'moral choice' was probably "do your job or get killed". I wonder what you would have choosed? That is the crux of the matter and it would have been a brave man to go against the Nazi regime. I'm not sure what purpose this will achieve as despicable and abhorrent the whole thing was it has been addressed and dealt with by now hasn't it? If not when do they start going after the guards and such like who didn't take the moral responsibility and open the gates? I think it's time to simply remember and never forget but 70 years on, move on nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 2 December, 2009 Share Posted 2 December, 2009 Anyone working for Nazi Germany deserves terrible things? Is everyone here retarded? Simple minded, reactive fools. What about the secretaries, the plumbers, the hairdresser who cut Himmlers hair? It's inane and insane to go around assuming that the majority were actively collaborating with genocide, war crimes etc. Some active party members had no truck at all with the more extreme elements of Nazi policy; they just wanted a better lot for their country and themselves. They should hang, right? He should be tortured? Christ, what a barbaric country we still are. Torturing him will achieve nothing. No punishment will ever take back any action, and most punishment doesn't even act as a deterrent. Even if Hitler himself had been caught, tortuing him would have achieved nothing but petty revenge. Nothing could ever be enough to'pay' for such crimes, so what's the point? Torturing anyone is against the law, and as people seem to need reminding all the time, it's the sort of thing we rightly deplore the Nazis for. No wonder some people think that the world is ripe for it all to happen again. All you need is a cause that enough morons with no brain, regardless of facts or soherent thinking, will get behind, a convincing speaker and propaganda campaign, and a willingness to resort to extreme measures 'for the good of something' or because people 'deserve' it and we're back in that situation. Torturing an old man is something that most moderate Nazi party card carriers would have considered beyond the pail, yet some of us seem oblivious to this obvious fact. The death sentence, too - why bother? What will that achieve? Nothing. It's a shame he wasn't called to account many years ago, if guilty, but he's managed to have freedom for most of the time since. That's all that matters, and no-one can change that now. Thousands upon thousands of those who were in some way guilty - including war crimes on our side - slipped through the net and most lived perfectly ok lives afterwards, some dying without anyone ever knowing. This is a simple fact. There is no such thing as justice in cases like these. Only lessons to be learned. All this thread seems to demonstrate, so soon into it, is that most people have already forgotten or never learned in the first place. Consider your attitudes, your reactions to the more abhorrent crimes. Consider how many times you have assumed someone is guilty just because they are arrested. If those things all sit comfortably with you, truly and honestly, in the light of what we should have learned from Nazi tyranny and all that has tragically come since, that really concerns me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 3 December, 2009 Share Posted 3 December, 2009 Cant rely on that Im afraid, as they dont exist.... Also, under the Nuremberg Principles, it states (Principle IV) that.... "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". In the common parlance, this principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders' " http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390 Which is fair enough, but three superiors within the camp were found not guilty post war and released, if he follows the same defence I wonder if he'll get the same result? Seems unfair to find his superiors not guilty but the man shutting the gas chamber door guilty, they were all culpable. Personally, once this trial is over I hope the world can move on and the "Nazi Hunters" will go into retirement. Yes if guilty these people did horrific things, and people should always pay for their crimes, but at 89 and looking like he did I don't feel a great deal is being gained by putting him on trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 December, 2009 Share Posted 3 December, 2009 I don't think that high level Nazi's such as Goering and Eichmann would have felt any need to reflect? Well, we'll never know, will we. There was an interesting book about Eichmann written a couple of years ago by David Cesarani, called 'Becoming Eichmann', which substantially revised the received view that senior Nazis were in essence evil, and from disturbed backgrounds. Nazis like Eichmann were actually disturbingly ordinary - rather like the disturbingly ordinary people who offer their sheeplike support and votes to neo-Nazi parties like the BNP and the many, similarly violent far-Right parties across Europe. Eichmann is a hero to the more vociferous of these idiots. He would be less so if he had renounced his savage past. But as I say, we'll never know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 3 December, 2009 Share Posted 3 December, 2009 Anyone working for Nazi Germany deserves terrible things? Is everyone here retarded? Simple minded, reactive fools. What about the secretaries, the plumbers, the hairdresser who cut Himmlers hair? It's inane and insane to go around assuming that the majority were actively collaborating with genocide, war crimes etc. Some active party members had no truck at all with the more extreme elements of Nazi policy; they just wanted a better lot for their country and themselves. They should hang, right? He should be tortured? Christ, what a barbaric country we still are. Torturing him will achieve nothing. No punishment will ever take back any action, and most punishment doesn't even act as a deterrent. Even if Hitler himself had been caught, tortuing him would have achieved nothing but petty revenge. Nothing could ever be enough to'pay' for such crimes, so what's the point? Torturing anyone is against the law, and as people seem to need reminding all the time, it's the sort of thing we rightly deplore the Nazis for. No wonder some people think that the world is ripe for it all to happen again. All you need is a cause that enough morons with no brain, regardless of facts or soherent thinking, will get behind, a convincing speaker and propaganda campaign, and a willingness to resort to extreme measures 'for the good of something' or because people 'deserve' it and we're back in that situation. Torturing an old man is something that most moderate Nazi party card carriers would have considered beyond the pail, yet some of us seem oblivious to this obvious fact. The death sentence, too - why bother? What will that achieve? Nothing. It's a shame he wasn't called to account many years ago, if guilty, but he's managed to have freedom for most of the time since. That's all that matters, and no-one can change that now. Thousands upon thousands of those who were in some way guilty - including war crimes on our side - slipped through the net and most lived perfectly ok lives afterwards, some dying without anyone ever knowing. This is a simple fact. There is no such thing as justice in cases like these. Only lessons to be learned. All this thread seems to demonstrate, so soon into it, is that most people have already forgotten or never learned in the first place. Consider your attitudes, your reactions to the more abhorrent crimes. Consider how many times you have assumed someone is guilty just because they are arrested. If those things all sit comfortably with you, truly and honestly, in the light of what we should have learned from Nazi tyranny and all that has tragically come since, that really concerns me. An excellent and thought provoking post if I may so and proves that the laws of a country or a society written or otherwise are far worse than those who have to execute them. Norman Mailer wrote 'Society is built on many people hurting many people, it is just who does the hurting, which is open to dispute'. Orwell 4 years after the end of WWII wrote 1984 and one quote in particular from that book sums up the attitude of those baying for the blood of this pitiful old man. it was also very insightful. 'If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now