bobby12 0 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Quote: A German court has found John Demjanjuk guilty of helping to murder at least 28,000 Jews at a Nazi death camp in World War II. He was sentenced to five years in prison, one year less than prosecutors had asked for. Prosecutors said the Ukraine-born Demjanjuk, 91, was a guard at Sobibor camp in Poland in 1943. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12321549 How do you feel about this? My personal feeling is that, of course, killing people in gas chambers was complete evil. However, I feel it is not fair to punish this individual for his part in it. I would imagine that he had little choice but to work there, if he quit he would get punished or starve. I do not know how much choice he had, but if there was little choice (As I imagine) then it seems very harsh to punish him. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Beyond a reasonable doubt means a lot to me. That is impossible given the little evidence presented and time since his accused crime. Considering the past trails that he has gone through I think there is some kind of vendetta against him. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 There has to be a time when we stop appropriating blame on individuals. As BM said, this guy has lived with what happened for the last 60 years, something that we can never imagine. We will never know the true story about his role, perhaps a better "punishment" would be for him to educate others about what happened in the camps? As far as I am concerned, the guy has done his time (8yrs in a Israeli prison, and a death sentence over his head). Time to put WW2 and its atrocities in the annals of history and let us learn from these mistakes, both on the allies and axis' sides. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I don't know the exact details of this case but I do know that there's no statute of limitations on murder and it's never too late for those affected to attempt to seek justice. It's all well and good for some on here to say we should put WWII behind us but there's still quite a few out there alive for whom the horrors and crimes that occurred during that conflict would be ever present in their minds to this day. I don't buy the idea he had no choice. We all can make choices and during Hitlers' attempt to exterminate the Jews in Europe many actively took part in it (like this guy), most chose to turn a blind eye and quite a few chose to assist Jews in escaping. If there are still people alive who actively chose to take part in the atrocities I have no problem with making whatever days they have left as uncomfortable as possible. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Well, read up a bit on it GN. I quite agree with the notion of no statue of limitations on murder (but that's not an international law nor is it applied in every country... Japan for instance doesn't have one) but baring conclusive evidence I don't see how it's possible to convict. Going forward I think it's much easier to make the claim that there shouldn't be a statute of limitations because we can collect DNA evidence etc... but going back 70 years? As Rob points out he was already a victim of mistaken identity and spent 8 years in an Israeli prison with a death sentence for something he didn't do... now he gets charged for over 28,000 counts of accessory to murder... If that is the standard than every German living at the time who didn't actively fight against Hitler are also guilty... it stinks to high heaven. Link to post Share on other sites
Slippery Jim 65 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Quote: a victim of mistaken identity and spent 8 years in an Israeli prison with a death sentence for something he didn't do He was a death-camp guard; there's no question about that, only about his relative level of brutality. Eight years in an Israeli prison? Probably less discomforting that a day at Sobibor. Link to post Share on other sites
bobby12 0 Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 Is he being punished for brutality or for accessory to murder? If the latter, surely 5 years is not enough for 28,000 murders. This raises the question of what counts as "accessory". In the case of a gang killing, it is easy to see how someone is supporting the murder. But in the nazi case it was totally different. Killing Jews was institutionalised: the government was behind the idea. In that case, it is a paradigm shift. He was operating in an environment where it was NOT ILLEGAL to do what he was doing. Then, 70 years later, we try to prosecute him from a *different paradigm* where it is now considered ILLEGAL. 70 years later, we say "OK in that paradigm your actions were legal, but um... you should have followed your own morality outside and acted against the establised paradigm". If we convict this guy then, following that logic to its conclusion, you have set a precedent saying that it is OK to disobey the law today because in future the law (paradigm) may change. This undermines the entire justice system. Link to post Share on other sites
Slippery Jim 65 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 If it was NOT ILLEGAL, why did the Nazis hide it? Governments commit illegal acts all the time (see Iran-Contra), saying that a government official told you do it does not absolve guilt. There was no paradigm shift, the Nazis knew they were engaged in illegality. Link to post Share on other sites
bobby12 0 Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 My point is that a citizen is bound by the laws of his country. In this case, the law at the time said it is not illegal to kill jews in the gas chambers. It is not workable to, on the one hand say that someone must obey the law, and on the other hand say it is ok to break the law if you think that law is wrong. That is what this ruling is doing, it is punishing him by todays laws instead of the laws of the day. If you do that, it is a dangerous precedent because it implies that if you follow the laws of today you may be later punished when the laws change. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Originally Posted By: DiGriz He was a death-camp guard; there's no question about that, only about his relative level of brutality. Eight years in an Israeli prison? Probably less discomforting that a day at Sobibor. Actually, that very point is in question. In fact, he claims he was in the red army and he himself was a prisoner of war held by the Germans. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Originally Posted By: DiGriz If it was NOT ILLEGAL, why did the Nazis hide it? Governments commit illegal acts all the time (see Iran-Contra), saying that a government official told you do it does not absolve guilt. There was no paradigm shift, the Nazis knew they were engaged in illegality. Nuremberg laws made it legal in Germany and across the Nazi empire. Simple as that. The laws came into force, I think, about 4/5 yrs before WW2, plenty of time for the world to stop the Nazis persecuting the Jewish population, but did they? Just because the world as a whole now sees what the Nazi empire did was wrong, back then, at the time, it was, how can I say it, an "accepted" part of life. How did the Nazis hide it? It was apparently common knowledge that Jews were rounded up and taken away, and the public knew that they were not common back. Link to post Share on other sites
Slippery Jim 65 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Bobby, I'd like to see some verifiable evidence that then-laws in Germany (including the so-called Nuremburg Laws) made it ``legal'' to simply kill Jews. Your strawman's leaking all over the place and badly needs a visit to the Emerald City. Rob, The NLs deprived Jews of citizenship and other legal rights, true, but they didn't declare open season. ``Common knowledge'' ``the public knew'' -- really Rob, quite a step down from your usual coherent posts. BM, yes he claims that, and OJ claims some other dude done it... But there's that little problem of the SS tattoo and the identity card. I don't think this old man was anywhere near one of the worst Holocaust criminals, and I probably wouldn't even bother imprisoning him at this point. But the evidence points clearly to him being complicit at best in what was under law then and now multiple murder. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Ah the slipper jim/dr griz typical ad hominem attacks come out. Changr of the name, that didnt involve a change of the personality. Shame that. Ok, I would like to see some evidence which made it illegal to kill jews then. While the nuremberg laws may not have declared "open-season", they did allow for persecution of Jews, and where do you think persecution states and ends? In your final point, you said that because he had an ss tattoo and an card makes a problem. Do you have evidence that he personally killed or injured those 29k people that were inprisoned there at the time of his stationing? In your reasoning, we should thus put on trial all the armed forces who have killed innocents because they were complicit. Even people who were there, such as radio operators, and we have no proof of them being engaged. Heck, let's put those navy seals on trial because they broke Pakistani law and International law when they killed bin laden. Link to post Share on other sites
Slippery Jim 65 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Rob, if you consider my saying that your usual posts are far more coherent than that one to be an ad hominem attack, you have my apology. I don't feel that pointing out you didn't meet your usual standard there is any kind of personal attack on you at all, rather the opposite, but if you think so I'll apologize. Quote: I would like to see some evidence which made it illegal to kill jews then. Oh hell, just to demonstrate contrition I'll even give you a response to this bizarre sentence: You, sir, are a nincompoop! (Oh, dear, afraid I just slipped into a little ad hominemism. Bad dog! No dessert for you tonight.) And I can't be bothered with the rest of your blather. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Well, it seems like he'll most likely not spend a day in jail for this and there is even a very good chance for the verdict to be overturned based on the appeals that have been filed. Anyway, the only fact that both sides of this story seem to agree on is that he was a soldier in the Red army and was captured by Germany. Then he either became a guard or didn't... I wonder what kind of choices the Germans offered him after he was captured...? Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Perhaps weiner or sauerkraut? Link to post Share on other sites
minus 1 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I voted Not Guilty, thought I'd just say that. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts