How far is too far in persuing nazis?

[AK84]

Here is a pertinent question, since the Holocaust was regrettably not the last genocide humans have inflicted upon each other.

For other, more recent genocides, like Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, where War Crimes Trials have occurred, have they gone after 18-year-old conscripts, who frankly are likely to be the only surviving Nazi’s these days? Michael K, was a bit older, true, but the basic question remains valid.

Have they gone after every pimply faced soldier from Srebrenica? Or they guy who was a guard in the killing fields? People who otherwise committed no murders, rapes or theft, who did not make policy and whose only act was being there?

[DrCube]

@Doctor_Jackson

I in no way believe that every act of killing in a declared war is a crime. You apparently do. Here is where we will have to agree to disagree, because there can be no reconciliation of those views.

No, I don’t believe that either. I still don’t get how killing almost 200,000 civilians is heroic, while killing 44 is an evil war crime. The guy’s side lost the war, I get that. I still don’t see how the thousands of Allied war heroes, who killed more innocent people, and who came home to accolades and honors and parades, were any better.

How do you reconcile that? Killing German and Japanese civilians is worthy of honor and respect, while killing a much smaller number of Polish civilians is criminal? He was on the same side that committed genocide, which is a crime we did prosecute and punish after the war. But he didn’t participate in that genocide, as far as I know. If anybody wants to correct me on that, please do.

Civilians die in war. But you have to pick one: prosecute those who targeted civilians, or don’t. To prosecute only those whose side lost is hypocritical. Ironically, it would be an act of spiteful revenge similar to what Michael Karkoc is being accused of. We were better than this after the war. What changed in the intervening three-fourths of a century?

To be as clear as I possibly can: I don’t see burning a Polish village during the war as anything but a tamer version of firebombing Dresden. Marching prisoners into gas chambers is entirely different. My understanding is that latter types of Nazis are who we exclusively prosecuted for war crimes immediately after the war and, as far as I know, up until today. And the explicit reason for that is that the Allies would be hypocrites to prosecute Nazis who simply targeted civilians, since targeting civilians was a major part of Allied strategy during the war. And my dispute is with the apparent changing of those rules at this late a date.

[SamuelA]

You know, we can demonize this guy and Auschwitz guards all day. The thing is - many German soldiers were drafted. And they really were just following orders. And, yes, they could have disobeyed and refused to commit a war crime. This would have likely resulted in their execution or being sent to the Eastern front, which is effectively the same thing.

It’s super easy to demonize people when they were participants in one of the largest crimes of the 20th century. Doesn’t mean the poor bastards had any meaningful choice.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Karkoc is not German. He is accused of being a leader in a Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary unit, not some poor schlub who was dragooned against his will.

@AK84

Here is a pertinent question, since the Holocaust was regrettably not the last genocide humans have inflicted upon each other.

For other, more recent genocides, like Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, where War Crimes Trials have occurred, have they gone after 18-year-old conscripts, who frankly are likely to be the only surviving Nazi’s these days? Michael K, was a bit older, true, but the basic question remains valid.

Have they gone after every pimply faced soldier from Srebrenica? Or they guy who was a guard in the killing fields? People who otherwise committed no murders, rapes or theft, who did not make policy and whose only act was being there?

Karkoc is accused of being the leader of a unit, rather than just some pimply conscript. There have been at least a few prosecutions involving similarly low-level paramilitary types and at least one involving a rank-and-file flunky (in this case a police officer).

Interestingly, somebody seems to have vandalized the “list of Bosnian genocide prosecutions” Wikipedia page so that most of the individuals listed are (former) Yugoslavian sports personalities who are apparently not accused of war crimes.

[madsircool]

@SamuelA

You know, we can demonize this guy and Auschwitz guards all day. The thing is - many German soldiers were drafted. And they really were just following orders. And, yes, they could have disobeyed and refused to commit a war crime. This would have likely resulted in their execution or being sent to the Eastern front, which is effectively the same thing.

It’s super easy to demonize people when they were participants in one of the largest crimes of the 20th century. Doesn’t mean the poor bastards had any meaningful choice.

SS and SD personnel were not drafted. You could refuse orders to serve in these units without fear of retribution. Sourced from Liftons Nazi Doctors.

[clairobscur]

@Jackmannii

TNope, never said any such thing.

So, what was the meaning of this :

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
And even if this guy lacks awareness, the world at large does not, including potential killers, who are being told they will be hunted till the end of their days.

[/QUOTE]

Doesn’t it implies that in your opinion the man should be tried even if he lacks awareness, in order to deter other potential killers?

My position is that it’s worthwhile to pursue those complicit in genocide without regard to how long they’ve gotten away with their crimes.

And my position is that it’s not worthwhile, because after so much time, there’s no possibility to hold a fair trial, hence there’s no real possibility to assess whether they were or not complicit in anything.

And you keep saying “how long they’ve gotten away with their crimes”, in other words, you’re still basing your position on the assumption that they are guilty. We’re talking about pursuing someone who might be guilty or might be innocent.

it’s questionable whether your family’s experiences qualify you to make decisions on how others should feel.

You’re the one who began the appeal to emotion “would you say so if the victim had been a loved one?” . Now, you move the goalpost with “what if your family had been more victimized?” or “what if some other family that has been victimized feels differently?”

I’m still waiting for your response to “what if your elderly father was prosecuted for war crimes” (of course, if your answer is “I would throw the old man to the wolves”, I will reply : “it’s questionable whether your feelings qualify you to make decisions on how others should feel”).

Appeal to emotion isn’t a valid argument, period. Even less so when it fails and you try instead “appeal to a stronger emotion”. Even less so when you keep ignoring that emotion exists on both side.

Pause for irony to sink in.

There’s only “irony” if, once again, you take as granted that the man is guilty (to decide whether or not we should try to figure out if he’s guilty).
Are you utterly unable to grasp the concept that this man might not be guilty? And that the decision you make must be fair and justifiable also if he’s innocent?

[clairobscur]

@AK84

Here is a pertinent question, since the Holocaust was regrettably not the last genocide humans have inflicted upon each other.

For other, more recent genocides, like Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, where War Crimes Trials have occurred, have they gone after 18-year-old conscripts, who frankly are likely to be the only surviving Nazi’s these days? Michael K, was a bit older, true, but the basic question remains valid.

Typically never. Besides genocides, the same is true for most countries where crimes were commited on a large scale, like for instance Latin American dictatorships, Apartheid South Africa, etc…

However, Rwanda is an exeption. Many “low level” killers were charged. But they were unable to deal with such a large number of accused. Many ended up being "tried"by some informal village assembly, with outcomes obviously highly dependant on who exactly was part of the assembly. Better to have not too many surviving Tutsis in the village, for instance. Better not to have a former neighbour who really disliked you for unrelated reasons.

Have they gone after every pimply faced soldier from Srebrenica?

They went after one private. Because he turned himself in out of guilt.

[AK84]

@madsircool

SS and SD personnel were not drafted. You could refuse orders to serve in these units without fear of retribution. Sourced from Liftons Nazi Doctors.

Well, sort of. They did not typically tell you beforehand exactly what your new unit did, you found out when you arrived. And it could take a while for transfer requests to be accepted. It took Oskar Goering three attempts before he was transferred out of Aushwhitz. And he protested the killings, fairly regularly. No evidence he participated in them or even a suggestion he did.

Still got tried and imprisoned.

[drewder]

It’s worth mentioning that the guy was not German. Rather he was Ukrainian.

[SamuelA]

@AK84

Well, sort of. They did not typically tell you beforehand exactly what your new unit did, you found out when you arrived. And it could take a while for transfer requests to be accepted. It took Oskar Goering three attempts before he was transferred out of Aushwhitz. And he protested the killings, fairly regularly. No evidence he participated in them or even a suggestion he did.

Still got tried and imprisoned.

So the Prosecution’s theory is that Goering should have immediately disobeyed orders the very instant he entered the camp and found out what it was for? I wonder what would have happened to him if he refused to do what he was told. If someone is holding you at gun point or puts a bomb collar on you and orders you to rob a bank, you’re not criminally responsible for the robbery, right? What is different here? Maybe Goering would not have been summarily executed but it sounds like the ultimate outcome would have been the same.

[clairobscur]

@AK84

It took Oskar Goering three attempts before he was transferred out of Aushwhitz.

Oskar Groning.

[clairobscur]

@SamuelA

I wonder what would have happened to him if he refused to do what he was told.

Some of the men of the book famous battalion 101 refused to take part in the executions of Jews and didn’t face any consequences. However, Groning was an active SS military and he had sworn a special oath to carry his duty at Auschwitz. I assume he would have been held to much higher standards than the reserve police officers of unit 101. So, I wouldn’t be able to even guess. I assume there has been other cases like him, and it has probably been studied. Does anyone know?

[AK84]

In my defense, it was my damned auto-correct. Groning/Groening asked specifically for (and got) a combat assignment. If you were in the system, it was not like you could “stop, right now”. You put in a transfer request and waited while it was processed and continued at your present post until ordered elsewhere. At least some have countered Groning’s version of events, pointing out that as a fit and healthy young man, he was very likely to be transferred to the front regardless at that time (late '43 when he put in his first request, mid '44 when it was approved). Also we have records both in the Holocaust and in other more recent genocides of people who protested, begged to be reassigned, tried to bargain for some persons lives, yet nevertheless participated in the atrocities.

Re 101 Battalion; an interesting take. TL;DR version, no general policy of punishment, but depended on your officer.

[Doctor_Jackson]

@DrCube

No, I don’t believe that either. I still don’t get how killing almost 200,000 civilians is heroic, while killing 44 is an evil war crime. The guy’s side lost the war, I get that. I still don’t see how the thousands of Allied war heroes, who killed more innocent people, and who came home to accolades and honors and parades, were any better.

It depends on why civilians were killed - intent. The A bomb drops were designed to speed the end of the war and, ultimately, save lives. The decision to kill Polish villagers (or My Lai villagers for a Vietnam example) was motivated by retribution and was only, at best, tangentially related to the war itself. Genocide had absolutely nothing to do with the war. Why weren’t the Axis pilots who repeatedly bombed London prosecuted? After all, they were on the losing side and killed civilians. The reason is because those bombings were designed to end the war in the Axis’ favor. Society has said that there is a line between some acts that, even though they be atrocious, that are allowed in war and some that are considered criminal whether at war or not. It’s certainly not a clean line, any many on both sides cross it without punishment, but that’s the best I can give you.

[SamuelA]

@Doctor_Jackson

It depends on why civilians were killed - intent.

While the victors at the Hague may have been able to smugly say that “just following orders” is not an excuse, I’m saying that’s total malarky. Actual soldiers in an actual military in wartime that is taking fatalities by the millions generally need to follow orders or die. Period. So their intent is “to save their own lives”.

Fail to obey orders, and you’ll get sent to almost certain death facing the Red Army on that front. Even if your unit surrenders, the Soviets will probably work you to death in a camp.

None of the Nazis being prosecuted today were the officers who actually planned these operations and authorized all the crimes. They are all dead of old age by now. And since I served in the military, I have some idea of what it’s like being a poor bastard stuck doing whatever dangerous thing they tell me. Even in units in Iraq, if you’re the squeaky wheel, you may just get assigned to convoy duty or the gun truck turret. I saw this happen personally.

And while it’s a statistical thing, when you’re sitting up in the turret or just rolling on those IED infested roads, your chance of being maimed or killed is a lot higher than if you’re back at base sucking up to the Captain.

I can see why people would rather guard a tower at a prison camp and get those sweet SS rations rather than face the endless Soviet army. Not only can I not really blame them, the truth is, if the soldiers being prosecuted today had taken the high road, they wouldn’t be alive now to be prosecuted. And someone else would have taken their place. They would personally be dead and probably not 1 less civilian would have been murdered.

That’s what it means to be an interchangeable cog in a war machine. “Just following orders”, for low ranking personal who have no authority to speak of, is true. Disobey and someone else will do it, and you will be punished.