[Mustang1]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Evidently some missed the point of the Nuremberg Trials - no one was "forced" (read up on some history as even SS personal had options) to do anything - let alone murder or genocide - and "following orders" was removed as an excuse

This is about justice, history and righting the wrongs of the past - this keeps the memory alive and reminds fugitives and the culpable that time won't let you evade judgment.

I'm wondering, should the railroad engineers who drove the trains that went to the camps be prosecuted? What about the people who delivered supplies to the camps?

While we're at it, why don't we prosecute the surviving US, British, French, and Canadian immigration clerks who denied entry to refugees trying to escape the camps explicitly because they were Jewish? Their actions (just following orders, of course) led directly to the deaths of thousands of Jews.

Remember, Nuremberg found that actions or inactions that led to the deaths of people in the camps were prosecutable offenses. Raoul Wallenberg was a hero for saving Jewish refugees so doesn't it follow that other immigration clerks are criminals for NOT saving Jewish refugees?

So will you abide an 88 year old Canadian being hauled out of their retirement home and shipped off to a German court in the interests of justice, history and righting the wrongs of the past? Hmmmm?

What a load of hyperbole - it's more of this silly revisionist nonsense that screams Hitler-apologist and begs for the guilty to escape prosecution. He wasn't a "railroad engineer" or a "ticket collector" or "secretary" or "baker" he was a guard, he trained guards and he had choices (remember Nuremberg established that moral point) and those allegedly involved shooting prisoners.

If people bothered to read history (instead of cursory garbage gleamed from google) then they'd know that even SS officers had choices, made conscious efforts to avoid death hand assignments, einzatzgruppen missions and systematic murdering of people deemed "undesirable" by the Third Reich.

If he's found guilty, then he's guilty. End of the story. But not history.

[Zipperfish]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Evidently some missed the point of the Nuremberg Trials - no one was "forced" (read up on some history as even SS personal had options) to do anything - let alone murder or genocide - and "following orders" was removed as an excuse

This is about justice, history and righting the wrongs of the past - this keeps the memory alive and reminds fugitives and the culpable that time won't let you evade judgment.

If "following orders" was "removed as an excuse" and (I suspect) during the Nazi regime not following orders was punsihable by summary execution, one wonders what the definition of "forced" would be in that context.

And a low ranking guard killing 430,000 Jews? DStrikes me as a tad doubtful. If that were the case you'd have 14 low-ranking guards responsible for the whole Holocaust.

Also, in all fairness, they should perhaps mention that some of the alleged dead may have been Gypsies, or gay men, or Jehovah Witnesses.


I think the guy should stand trial, no doubt about it. But it is getting a little tired.

[Mustang1]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think the guy should stand trial, no doubt about it. But it is getting a little tired.

It's probably not getting tired for the victims or their families (of the 10 he's accused of murdering, in addition to the other charges).

Try him. There never should be a statue of limitations on murder/genocide.

[hurley_108]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Evidently some missed the point of the Nuremberg Trials - no one was "forced" (read up on some history as even SS personal had options) to do anything - let alone murder or genocide - and "following orders" was removed as an excuse

Even I remember this from my public high school education.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is absurd.

What is?

Prosecuting an 88yo man for something he was forced to do 70 years ago.

This accomplishes nothing.

It accomplishes the reminder that there is (or at least should be) no tolerance for genocide. It's just a shame that what is and is not considered a genocide, what is or is not done during a genocide, and whether or not the guilty are prosecuted afterwards are based on political motivations.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

It accomplishes the reminder that there is (or at least should be) no tolerance for genocide. It's just a shame that what is and is not considered a genocide, what is or is not done during a genocide, and whether or not the guilty are prosecuted afterwards are based on political motivations.

So you'd support prosecuting people who stopped refugees from escaping the Nazis?

[Brenda]

$1:

And that's not what you originally posted - you made a dismissive, insensitive remark that somehow hinged on his wartime station and money. That alone dismisses most of you what you puke out here as bushleague swill.

My original post was in agreement with Bart, with a quote from the actual story.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

And that's not what you originally posted - you made a dismissive, insensitive remark that somehow hinged on his wartime station and money. That alone dismisses most of you what you puke out here as bushleague swill.

My original post was in agreement with Bart, with a quote from the actual story.

And I agree with Brenda's expansion on the subject. The man was forced to be a prison guard. So were a number of Russians, Poles, French, and even Koreans were conscripted from the POW camps to work as prison guards.

By 'forced' that means when given the choice of dying in an Eastern Front POW camp or getting a chance to live by doing something he probably did not understand when he agreed to it that means he was forced.

Before anyone parses that, if I take a woman out to the middle of Lake Tahoe and then give her the choice of swimming to shore or boffing me no one questions that this is not a choice because if she failed to go along with me she'd likely die.

And THAT defense has been used successfully by JEWS who worked in positions of trust in the camps and who were 'complicit' with killing other Jews.

[Mustang1]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

And that's not what you originally posted - you made a dismissive, insensitive remark that somehow hinged on his wartime station and money. That alone dismisses most of you what you puke out here as bushleague swill.

My original post was in agreement with Bart, with a quote from the actual story.

This part here "I am very for prosecuting the masterminds of the war, but people like this? Meh, waste of taxmoney."?

It's a truly insensitive, ignorant comment.

[Mustang1]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Evidently some missed the point of the Nuremberg Trials - no one was "forced" (read up on some history as even SS personal had options) to do anything - let alone murder or genocide - and "following orders" was removed as an excuse

Even I remember this from my public high school education.

Most do...however the relativisth crowd or the uneducated have a difficult time bringing knowledge to the discussion.

Oh...and i'm still waiting on the part where Kunz is excused for murdering at least 10 people directly. I guess the apologists are excusing that part too.

[Brenda]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

And that's not what you originally posted - you made a dismissive, insensitive remark that somehow hinged on his wartime station and money. That alone dismisses most of you what you puke out here as bushleague swill.

My original post was in agreement with Bart, with a quote from the actual story.

This part here "I am very for prosecuting the masterminds of the war, but people like this? Meh, waste of taxmoney."?

It's a truly insensitive, ignorant comment.

That was not my first post, and it was in line with the story, which claims prosecuting people like him was not priority for 6 decades.

[Mustang1]

Brenda Brenda:

That was not my first post, and it was in line with the story, which claims prosecuting people like him was not priority for 6 decades.

I don't care. I responded and referenced this, "
This man was a POW and was given the choice to stay that way, or to be a guard at a camp.
I am very for prosecuting the masterminds of the war, but people like this? Meh, waste of taxmoney."


At least fess up to your rather dumb and insensitive comment instead of bluffing your way out of accepting responsibility for your missteps. Sad.

[Zipperfish]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Evidently some missed the point of the Nuremberg Trials - no one was "forced" (read up on some history as even SS personal had options) to do anything - let alone murder or genocide - and "following orders" was removed as an excuse

Even I remember this from my public high school education.

Most do...however the relativisth crowd or the uneducated have a difficult time bringing knowledge to the discussion.

Oh...and i'm still waiting on the part where Kunz is excused for murdering at least 10 people directly. I guess the apologists are excusing that part too.

Hey, don't drag the moral relativists into this!

[Brenda]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Brenda Brenda:

That was not my first post, and it was in line with the story, which claims prosecuting people like him was not priority for 6 decades.

I don't care. I responded and referenced this, "
This man was a POW and was given the choice to stay that way, or to be a guard at a camp.
I am very for prosecuting the masterminds of the war, but people like this? Meh, waste of taxmoney."


At least fess up to your rather dumb and insensitive comment instead of bluffing your way out of accepting responsibility for your missteps. Sad.

You make a mistake, twist it around and tell me you don't care, and I should "fess up and accept responsibility for my misstep" that I didn't make?

I stand by my point. The man is 88 years old, did what he was told to do, and probably won't live till his trial. Yes, I think it's a waste of taxpayers money. There are better ways and more important people to prosecute than this man. They even thought so themselves for 60 years.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda is spot on here. The only reason this old man is being prosecuted at this point is not because he may be guilty, but because some useless sack of sh*t prosecutor wants to make a name for himself.