Ex-Nazi bookeeper charged [Update: Convicted and sentenced]

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't really believe he "feels bad" about it. If he really felt so bad about it, he would have turned himself in decades ago. Instead, he's 93 years old. He knows he's unlikely to live much longer. He has nothing to lose at this point. So pardon me if I don't think he genuinely feels remorse for being involved in crimes against humanity.

He actually did. He has been VERY public about who he is, where he was, and what he did since at least the 1980s when he started trying to combat Holocaust Denial, which he has been doing since. Up until now, there was not a crime to charge him with, or at least not a legal framework under which to charge him, precisely because he was not involved in the mass murder directly.

Now, German prosecutors are trying out a brand new legal theory under which to charge him with Accessory to Murder. Whether it will work is an open question. He admits factual guilt, but criminal liability is another matter entirely, and that is a matter for the german courts.

Here are the facts

He joined the SS in 1940 after being indoctrinated in Nazism from the age of 12. His original posting was in Salary Administration. In 1942, the SS changed its institutional rules such that desk jobs were reserved for injured combat veterans, and he was reassigned. He was posted to Auschwitz as a property clerk. When he witnessed his first atrocity he immediately asked for a transfer to a front line fighting unit on the eastern front. He never killed anyone while at Auschwitz. He never assisted in murder, body disposal, or anything of the sort. He did handle what amounts to stolen property. Eventually, he was able to secure transfer to a front-line unit, and survived to be captured by the British in 1945.

There was no order that he had a moral duty to disobey other than an Auschwitz posting, which was largely a matter of happenstance from the perspective of an SS enlisted man, and he did not know the purpose of the camp until he got there.

Those are the facts. Indisputable. All matters of public record and true by his own admittance in numerous BBC documentaries that have featured him as a primary source.

So, please do learn the facts of a case before you shoot your mouth off.

Now, as I understand it, the prosecution's theory is that anyone attached to the Machine of Death, even tangentially, is guilty of being an accessory to the Machine of Death, provided they knew what it was. A property clerk? Guilty. Himmler's car driver? Guilty. There are not many people left to prosecute under this legal theory, and the legal reasoning might not hold up in German courts. Or it might. That is up to the German courts.

[Patroklos]

Yes actually. He joined the youth organization, as has been repeatedly stated in this thread.

Just so we are clear, you think a 12 year old can be judged for an ideological crime for joining the Hitler Youth in 1933. Like he is in a state of mind or circumstances where he could be criticized for doing so? Perhaps a bit of context is required:

In 1923, the youth organization of the Nazi party had a little over 1,000 members[citation needed] and was limited to Munich. In 1925, when the Nazi Party had been refounded, the membership grew to over 5,000. Five years later, national membership stood at 25,000. By the end of 1932, it was at 107,956. When the Nazis came to power next year, 1933, and the membership of Hitler Youth organisations increased dramatically to 2,300,000 members by the end of that year. Much of these increases came from forcible takeovers of other youth organizations. (The sizable Evangelische Jugend, a Lutheran youth organisation of 600,000 members, was integrated on 18 February 1934).[11] In 1934, a law declared the Hitler Youth to be the only legally permitted youth organization in Germany, and stated that "all of the German youth in the Reich is organised within the Hitler Youth."[12]

However, how active many members were remains open to speculation. For example, in the class of Hans J. Massaquoi,[13] 100% of the Aryan pupils in his class became Pimpf. However many of his classmates joined because of their parents or teachers or to be like everybody else. After several months many of the children became inactive and almost all left after one or two years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth

The fact is that there is a very good chance that in a similar situation both you and Stas would being in those short shorts saluting swastikas too. Or some analog in other dystopian hell hole.

Again this obsession with vilification above and beyond any reasonable assessment is baffling. The dude was a member of the SS and worked at Auschwitz. Even if he is not held laible for accessory to these murders he is still in the rarefied heights of modern humanities most heinous human beings. Is that not enough? Why do you have to invent stories about rabid Nazi twelve year olds and fibs about being an "accountant?" I expect it (not condone) it from click bait sites and eyeball magnet news broadcasts. But why here? Do you get forum points for hating Nazis .0001% more than the next guy?

[Simon_Jester]

It is not that a twelve year old is morally culpable for joining an organization dedicated to promoting radical and evil political views among youths. It is that if such a person joins the organization, and stays there, and joins other, adult organizations based on the same politics when they get old enough, and so on... it says something about their political views. It indicates that they were pretty sincere about those views, and argues against any claim that they had misgivings about their politics.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, I'd have joined the Nazi Party in interwar Germany, there being no other options for the national glory and salvation, and hoping it would lead to the restoration of the Kaiser. I'd have stayed for patriotism when the war broke out. And I'd have deserved to die for it. In Austria I'd have been a virulent supporter of Dollfuß and died shooting Nazis marching into the country for Anschluss. In one case history would remember me as a villain, and the other, a hero; in both cases I'd be the same person, and in both cases I'd deserve my fate. The fact that I'm not so arrogant as to think I'm capable of standing against the tide of a situation doesn't change my view of the relative guilt of the people there.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I don't really believe he "feels bad" about it. If he really felt so bad about it, he would have turned himself in decades ago. Instead, he's 93 years old. He knows he's unlikely to live much longer. He has nothing to lose at this point. So pardon me if I don't think he genuinely feels remorse for being involved in crimes against humanity.

He actually did. He has been VERY public about who he is, where he was, and what he did since at least the 1980s when he started trying to combat Holocaust Denial, which he has been doing since. Up until now, there was not a crime to charge him with, or at least not a legal framework under which to charge him, precisely because he was not involved in the mass murder directly.

Now, German prosecutors are trying out a brand new legal theory under which to charge him with Accessory to Murder. Whether it will work is an open question. He admits factual guilt, but criminal liability is another matter entirely, and that is a matter for the german courts.

Here are the facts

He joined the SS in 1940 after being indoctrinated in Nazism from the age of 12. His original posting was in Salary Administration. In 1942, the SS changed its institutional rules such that desk jobs were reserved for injured combat veterans, and he was reassigned. He was posted to Auschwitz as a property clerk. When he witnessed his first atrocity he immediately asked for a transfer to a front line fighting unit on the eastern front. He never killed anyone while at Auschwitz. He never assisted in murder, body disposal, or anything of the sort. He did handle what amounts to stolen property. Eventually, he was able to secure transfer to a front-line unit, and survived to be captured by the British in 1945.

There was no order that he had a moral duty to disobey other than an Auschwitz posting, which was largely a matter of happenstance from the perspective of an SS enlisted man, and he did not know the purpose of the camp until he got there.

Those are the facts. Indisputable. All matters of public record and true by his own admittance in numerous BBC documentaries that have featured him as a primary source.

So, please do learn the facts of a case before you shoot your mouth off.

Now, as I understand it, the prosecution's theory is that anyone attached to the Machine of Death, even tangentially, is guilty of being an accessory to the Machine of Death, provided they knew what it was. A property clerk? Guilty. Himmler's car driver? Guilty. There are not many people left to prosecute under this legal theory, and the legal reasoning might not hold up in German courts. Or it might. That is up to the German courts.

I stand corrected. And apparently guilty of pissing in Cheerios without being aware of it. Pardon my cynicism on things.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, I'd have joined the Nazi Party in interwar Germany, there being no other options for the national glory and salvation, and hoping it would lead to the restoration of the Kaiser. I'd have stayed for patriotism when the war broke out. And I'd have deserved to die for it. In Austria I'd have been a virulent supporter of Dollfuß and died shooting Nazis marching into the country for Anschluss. In one case history would remember me as a villain, and the other, a hero; in both cases I'd be the same person, and in both cases I'd deserve my fate. The fact that I'm not so arrogant as to think I'm capable of standing against the tide of a situation doesn't change my view of the relative guilt of the people there.

It is not arrogant to resist the majority or ones' nation to defy evil and follow ones' conscience. Those who do may lose, they may die. Or they may not. But the choice is their's. Their is no scientific law that says you must always follow your country- men and women throughout history have defied their nation on moral grounds. Just because you are apparently an unapologetic nationalist for whom morality and reason take a backseat to following your country does not mean that everyone else is.

If either of my home countries followed the path of Nazi Germany, I would leave the country and do what I could from abroad to undermine and speak out against the monsters who had highjacked my homeland. Easy for me to say, of course, when I'm sitting safely at home in a democratic country. I sincerely hope I am never put to the test. But it would be my duty not to follow my nation into evil.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, the majority of people tend to behave in a tribal fashion and 'stand up for the country and king'. It is a fact of life. Moreover, people who think they would behave otherwise often succumb just as fast as the others.

Easy for me to say, of course, when I'm sitting safely at home in a democratic country.

Very much so. You have never been tested by the reality of either following or resisting a politically powerful movement, or - in the ultimate case - a government. It is indeed a bit premature and arrogant to say what you would have done. Leaving the country is often not as easy for most people because of family ties. You really have to sever them if you want to leave or fight. Any relative becomes a weak spot. Any friend a potential traitor. You hardly know how it is.

[The Romulan Republic]

I understand that doing the right thing can sometimes be dangerous and painful. I did not intend to minimize the horror or the dilemma for those caught in such a situation. But that doesn't change the fact that their is a moral obligation to, if not actively fight tyranny, at least not actively be complicite in aiding it. I can't know what I would do in such a situation, but that doesn't mean I can't say what I should do.

[Purple]

That's the thing though. Do we have any right to demand people suffer such horror and punish them if they fail? There has to be a line where we can say that the person in question honestly had a choice, but that the alternative to committing what we consider criminal is so bad that we do not fault them for not taking it. Is this the case here I can't say. But that must be something we keep in mind.

[Thanas]

I think the question we should be asking is not one of guilt - he himself admits he is guilty. The question we should be asking - aside from the legal case, which got a lot of trouble with procedural law alone - is if in a moral sense, his actions after the war, such as combating holocaust denial, being honest about his bad deeds and doing a lot to discourage further nazism make up for what he did. Specifically, if they make up in a degree sufficient that despite doing bad things he should not be punished for it but granted mercy due to his further actions.

[K. A. Pital]

The question we should be asking - aside from the legal case, which got a lot of trouble with procedural law alone - is if in a moral sense, his actions after the war, such as combating holocaust denial, being honest about his bad deeds and doing a lot to discourage further nazism make up for what he did. Specifically, if they make up in a degree sufficient that despite doing bad things he should not be punished for it but granted mercy due to his further actions.

Indeed, could his work as a witness of the events be a mitigating circumstance? He has not avoided prosecution, either, which should also be considered.

Do we have any right to demand people suffer such horror and punish them if they fail?

The thing is, the victims suffered even greater horrors, and ultimately death, while he and many others who were involved in this, live on. I don't think that this can excuse people. The victims had no choice either. Who had a choice? If you go to the idea that only the superiors had a choice, you end up with lots of horrible people using the 'it was just an order' excuse. As it happened in reality. Rather horrible people got pardoned, too, just for being useful, and their involvement was downplayed. Von Braun, for once, did not care how many slaves die so as long as he got his rockets built. Just as the other SS-men involved in Hitler's megaprojects, he was perfectly willing to massacre for science, and at best he was a mass murderer through callousness - this at a time when some of those who worked on Nazi plants risked their lives by sabotaging the production and not trying to 'achieve their dream' so that Nazi Germany could win or continue doing what it was doing.

[Purple]

The thing is, the victims suffered even greater horrors, and ultimately death, while he and many others who were involved in this, live on. I don't think that this can excuse people. The victims had no choice either. Who had a choice? If you go to the idea that only the superiors had a choice, you end up with lots of horrible people using the 'it was just an order' excuse. As it happened in reality. Rather horrible people got pardoned, too, just for being useful, and their involvement was downplayed. Von Braun, for once, did not care how many slaves die so as long as he got his rockets built. Just as the other SS-men involved in Hitler's megaprojects, he was perfectly willing to massacre for science, and at best he was a mass murderer through callousness - this at a time when some of those who worked on Nazi plants risked their lives by sabotaging the production and not trying to 'achieve their dream' so that Nazi Germany could win or continue doing what it was doing.

Thing is, I can't bring my self to possibly believe that punishing someone who had no real choice for something he or she has done is anything but morally repugnant.

[Borgholio]

Specifically, if they make up in a degree sufficient that despite doing bad things he should not be punished for it but granted mercy due to his further actions.

I would say yes, in this case. Again, he was just a bookkeeper...and he tried to get the hell out of there as soon as he knew what was going on. After the war, he fought to bring awareness to the Holocaust and seemed to feel genuine remorse for what he had a part in (regardless of how small). He was not a murderer, nor did he help others commit murder. So he should not be punished as if he did.

[Patroklos]

If either of my home countries followed the path of Nazi Germany, I would leave the country and do what I could from abroad to undermine and speak out against the monsters who had highjacked my homeland. Easy for me to say, of course, when I'm sitting safely at home in a democratic country. I sincerely hope I am never put to the test. But it would be my duty not to follow my nation into evil.

And you would have made that decision at 12? Or at 19 after seven years of indoctrination? You can't say that, and I do sympathize with whomever grew up in what was basically an alternate reality. I make a very big distinction between people who were 12 in 1933 and ended up Nazis and those who were 35 in 1933 and ended up Nazis. Having sympathy for is not the same thing as absolving, but the moral and ideological decisions made by those two individuals are not the same.

[The Romulan Republic]

There is that. Some leeway can be given to indoctrinated children. They are also really victims.

[Simon_Jester]

That's the thing though. Do we have any right to demand people suffer such horror and punish them if they fail? There has to be a line where we can say that the person in question honestly had a choice, but that the alternative to committing what we consider criminal is so bad that we do not fault them for not taking it. Is this the case here I can't say. But that must be something we keep in mind.

This is why, for instance, the Allies didn't just shoot everyone who'd joined the Wehrmacht out of hand. Because they were distinguishing between merely being loyal to Germany and actually being one of those responsible for the war and the war crimes.

The Second World War was an enormous, overpowering thing; moral clarity was actually in some ways profoundly lacking because no one person really understood what was going on. Especially not people at ground level, and especially not those in the Axis powers. The average German had been cynically lied to and manipulated for a decade or more before war broke out- for most of that time it was a criminal act to even question the lies.

http://www.leesandlin.com/articles/LosingTheWar.htm

This essay is a good tool for thinking about the war. Because it is well written in terms of conveying the sense that the war was this enormous thing, that people acted perversely and that they did not necessarily have a clear idea of the meaning of what they were doing.

But at the same time, there are acts that in themselves are beyond even what is normal in war- these are the ones we try to punish, the things that are a crime even in war when all is chaos.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Thing is, I can't bring my self to possibly believe that punishing someone who had no real choice for something he or she has done is anything but morally repugnant.

Everyone has a choice. Including Martyrdom.

[Purple]

Thing is, I can't bring my self to possibly believe that punishing someone who had no real choice for something he or she has done is anything but morally repugnant.

Everyone has a choice. Including Martyrdom.

Martyrdom and personal suffering are not a valid option. Show me any law that demands people pick great suffering over disobedience and you'll have shown me a law that is very, very messed up.

[Titan Uranus]

Thing is, I can't bring my self to possibly believe that punishing someone who had no real choice for something he or she has done is anything but morally repugnant.

Everyone has a choice. Including Martyrdom.

Martyrdom and personal suffering are not a valid option. Show me any law that demands people pick great suffering over disobedience and you'll have shown me a law that is very, very messed up.

I... every law against murder in every non-Scandinavian country?

All regulations I am aware of against desertion in a time of war?

I think the question we should be asking is not one of guilt - he himself admits he is guilty. The question we should be asking - aside from the legal case, which got a lot of trouble with procedural law alone - is if in a moral sense, his actions after the war, such as combating holocaust denial, being honest about his bad deeds and doing a lot to discourage further nazism make up for what he did. Specifically, if they make up in a degree sufficient that despite doing bad things he should not be punished for it but granted mercy due to his further actions.

Is there any reason he cannot do all of those things from a comfortable cell?

His actions after the war may give some cause for leniency, but I for one am not comfortable with allowing and SS man who was not a spy of some sort to go unpunished, no matter what he did after the war.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Thing is, I can't bring my self to possibly believe that punishing someone who had no real choice for something he or she has done is anything but morally repugnant.

Everyone has a choice. Including Martyrdom.

Martyrdom and personal suffering are not a valid option. Show me any law that demands people pick great suffering over disobedience and you'll have shown me a law that is very, very messed up.

It just simply means you are a moral coward.

[Purple]

I... every law against murder in every non-Scandinavian country?

How is demanding you not murder someone equal to demanding you suffer or die?

All regulations I am aware of against desertion in a time of war?

Since being sent to war, probably against your will (if you want to run away you can't have been willing to go to war to begin with) is in no way messed up at all.

It just simply means you are a moral coward.

It means I am a human being. There is nothing positive about sacrificing your self for some sort of higher moral standard. Honor won't do you any good when you are dead.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, I can't bring my self to possibly believe that punishing someone who had no real choice for something he or she has done is anything but morally repugnant.

Everyone has a choice. Including Martyrdom.

To expect gloriously capitalized Martyrdom from citizens as a normal option, as though everyone were an ideological fanatic not afraid at any moment to die and leave everything in their life at risk of destruction...

Well, the kindest description I can come up with is "utterly ignorant of human nature."

It's not that martyrdom is inherently wrong or stupid- but if it were a thing normal humans were capable of while still part of a functioning civilization, while there is still some realistic hope that there will be a tomorrow...

We'd be a very different species if that were true.

[Ralin]

I don't think they expect it, Simon. But they do seem to think we should require it.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

To expect gloriously capitalized Martyrdom from citizens as a normal option, as though everyone were an ideological fanatic not afraid at any moment to die and leave everything in their life at risk of destruction...

Well, the kindest description I can come up with is "utterly ignorant of human nature."

It's not that martyrdom is inherently wrong or stupid- but if it were a thing normal humans were capable of while still part of a functioning civilization, while there is still some realistic hope that there will be a tomorrow...

We'd be a very different species if that were true.

What are you talking about? Have you not heard of conscription? Back then various states demanded its citizens to live and die for the state through conscription. That is still practised now and you are sorely deluded if that option will never come up again. One does not need to be an ideological fanatic to be called up to live and die for a cause.

Moreover, martyrdom is not always about the notion of "no hope". It can also be done just so to make a point.

It means I am a human being. There is nothing positive about sacrificing your self for some sort of higher moral standard. Honor won't do you any good when you are dead.

Let's try that rationalisation in a court trying to try a war criminal and let's see how far that goes.

You know that fellow in Interstellar who sabotaged the beacon and faked the reports just to get people to come and rescue him? That sounds just like you.

[Titan Uranus]

I... every law against murder in every non-Scandinavian country?

How is demanding you not murder someone equal to demanding you suffer or die?

That may have been what you meant to say, but what you actually said was "Show me any law that demands people pick great suffering over disobedience and you'll have shown me a law that is very, very messed up."
Pretty much any law against murder demands that you obey it or face great suffering.

All regulations I am aware of against desertion in a time of war?

Since being sent to war, probably against your will (if you want to run away you can't have been willing to go to war to begin with) is in no way messed up at all.

That is not what the regulations are for, they are there to discourage looting, raping, pillaging and the like. In addition they are there to prevent entire armies melting away out of self-interest. You must remember that an awful lot of young men deep down just want to kill people and break their things.