5 Year in prison for the murder of 28,000 people?

[Skyrad 0]

So who says us Europeans are a bunch of wusses when it comes to crime? Former Nazi death camp guard gets five years for complicity in murdering 28,000 people. He's now 91 years old an in ill health, personally I'd have sentenced him to life regardless of how long he may or may not live.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/nazi-guard-demjanjuk-jailed-five-years-germany-100917101.html

http://www.sobibor.info/murder.html

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,435]

Being a guard in a place that murdered 28,000 people is a bit different than murdering 28,000 people. Still a crime, but one of omission, not action.

Paul Tibbets killed 140,000 innocent civilians in a much more direct manner than this guy. But since he was on the winning side, he got a medal instead of jail time.

[Meso 38]

Update is that he will be freed regardless of his sentence because of his age and health. I think it's a fair thing to do, putting him behind bars won't solve anything, not at this stage in his life. I'm sure his conscience over the years has already done more than prison would.

[cantstandya 0]

I reject the premise of your poll. In other words, your question is bullshit.

[weekender 0]

responding to Billvon

He was never put in jail because he did not commit a crime. Period. your entire comment is an insult to anyone who has a basic understanding of history.

My father fought in the Pacific. I can hear him laughing at you from his grave. you should be ashamed of yourself.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[airdvr 200]

Being from Cleveland I've been half-watching Demjanjuk's trials for 20 years now.

I believe he was a guard at Treblinka. He may have been directly involved in the killing. Problem is there is no real evidence. Either way he's been worked over for the last 20 years, what's another 5?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I reject the premise of your poll. In other words, your question is bullshit.

Care to elaborate?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[wsd 0]

Quote

responding to Billvon

He was never put in jail because he did not commit a crime. Period. your entire comment is an insult to anyone who has a basic understanding of history.

My father fought in the Pacific. I can hear him laughing at you from his grave. you should be ashamed of yourself.

Agreed.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

I believe he was a guard at Treblinka.

Treblinka was apparently never proven... Then they tried him for Sobibor...

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[jclalor 12]

It was his first offense.

[wsd 0]

Quote

Being a guard in a place that murdered 28,000 people is a bit different than murdering 28,000 people. Still a crime, but one of omission, not action.

Paul Tibbets killed 140,000 innocent civilians in a much more direct manner than this guy. But since he was on the winning side, he got a medal instead of jail time.

Do you think Tibbets should have been prosecuted?

If so, do you realize you might not even exist today?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Being a guard in a place that murdered 28,000 people is a bit different than murdering 28,000 people. Still a crime, but one of omission, not action.

Paul Tibbets killed 140,000 innocent civilians in a much more direct manner than this guy. But since he was on the winning side, he got a medal instead of jail time.

You do realize the number of Japanese civilian deaths that would have resulted in the American invasion of Japan? Some estimates were as high as 5 million. It's real easy to second guess them now. If we had not used the bombs and millions of civilians died during an invasion, people would be saying that by not nuking them, that would have made us responsible for even more deaths.

An interesting fact I discovered reading the attachment I included, was that the US produced 500,00 purple hearts in anticipation of the invasion of Japan, to this day they still have over 100,000 left and are still using this supply to this day.

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

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

It was his first offense.

I don't want to laugh at that but I can't help myself, you sick puppy

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[pirana 0]

Quote

Being a guard in a place that murdered 28,000 people is a bit different than murdering 28,000 people. Still a crime, but one of omission, not action.

Paul Tibbets killed 140,000 innocent civilians in a much more direct manner than this guy. But since he was on the winning side, he got a medal instead of jail time.

Interesting fine line. I suppose those that disagree with you consider it acceptable to kill thousands of civilians if they are walking around free; but not OK to kill them if they are locked up or confined.

I see it as situational ethics; with people's opinions largely based their sense of self-righteousness.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Update is that he will be freed regardless of his sentence because of his age and health. I think it's a fair thing to do, putting him behind bars won't solve anything, not at this stage in his life. I'm sure his conscience over the years has already done more than prison would.

I disagree. The policy of the Nazi hunters has always been "We will hunt you to your grave." The sentence would not have rehabilitation in mind, but rather a message to future war criminals: NEVER TO FORGIVE! NEVER TO FORGET!

[billvon 2,435]

>He was never put in jail because he did not commit a crime.

Agreed. The victors write the laws. Had the Japanese won, he'd have been as guilty as this guy was.

[billvon 2,435]

>If we had not used the bombs and millions of civilians died during an
>invasion, people would be saying that by not nuking them, that would
>have made us responsible for even more deaths.

Agreed. And if Germany had won the war, they could have argued that the camps were an essential part of winning it and thus avoiding all the deaths that would have resulted from prolonging it. Again, the victors write the laws - AND the history books.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Agreed. And if Germany had won the war, they could have argued that the camps were an essential part of winning it and thus avoiding all the deaths that would have resulted from prolonging it. Again, the victors write the laws - AND the history books.

that one would be a hard argument to make - just as the US (winner) no longer defends slavery or the Indian genocides. The Soviets owned up to many of their offenses after the breakup in smaller pieces.

[billvon 2,435]

>that one would be a hard argument to make - just as the US (winner) no
> longer defends slavery or the Indian genocides.

Agreed. But the military enjoys significantly more protections when it comes to being held accountable for what they were ordered to do. Witness how the soldiers who killed the students at Kent State were required merely to express regret; no punishment ensued. (To our credit we have since gotten better at holding people accountable for their actions.)

[likearock 1]

Quote

>If we had not used the bombs and millions of civilians died during an
>invasion, people would be saying that by not nuking them, that would
>have made us responsible for even more deaths.

Agreed. And if Germany had won the war, they could have argued that the camps were an essential part of winning it and thus avoiding all the deaths that would have resulted from prolonging it. Again, the victors write the laws - AND the history books.

That's really a non-sequitor. The post you responded to compared two scenarios, both of which assumed an American victory.

[freethefly 6]

He could be considered a scapegoat, much in the way that Lt. Calley was for the My Lai Massacre. Calley served less than 5 years for the charge of premeditated murder of 22 civilians, although 300 to 500 women and children were slaughtered. Calley claimed he was just following orders. He may had been doing just that, as the Pentagon wanted numbers at any cost. An 18 month cover up followed the massacre.
As stated: Some have argued that the outcome of the My Lai courts-martial was a reversal of the laws of war that were set forth in the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals. Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway was quoted in the New York Times as stating that Calley's sentence was reduced because Calley honestly believed that what he did was a part of his orders—a rationale that stands in direct contradiction of the standards set at Nuremberg and Tokyo, where German and Japanese soldiers were executed for similar acts.
Demjanjuk may had been just been following "orders".
Billvons statement is correct.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[nbblood 0]

Quote

So who says us Europeans are a bunch of wusses when it comes to crime? Former Nazi death camp guard gets five years for complicity in murdering 28,000 people. He's now 91 years old an in ill health, personally I'd have sentenced him to life regardless of how long he may or may not live.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/nazi-guard-demjanjuk-jailed-five-years-germany-100917101.html

http://www.sobibor.info/murder.html

Did you miss the part about this being a German court? This WAS you "Europeans". If you're saying that the sentence wasn't appropriate, you'll have to take that up with the EUROPEAN court that administered it.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[Skyrad 0]

Well theres no flies on you, eh bullet.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[popsjumper 2]

I'm totally with Bill on this one.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Being a guard in a place that murdered 28,000 people is a bit different than murdering 28,000 people. Still a crime, but one of omission, not action.

Paul Tibbets killed 140,000 innocent civilians in a much more direct manner than this guy. But since he was on the winning side, he got a medal instead of jail time.

Quote

You do realize the number of Japanese civilian deaths that would have resulted in the American invasion of Japan?

So...in order to justify using "the bomb", they admitted that they were going to go in and kill civilians as the alternative.

Do you not see a problem with that?

Quote

Some estimates were as high as 5 million. It's real easy to second guess them now.

Key word, "estimates". Their justification sounded more like "targets" than "estimates".

Quote

If we had not used the bombs and millions of civilians died during an invasion, people would be saying that by not nuking them, that would have made us responsible for even more deaths.

Why sure! If we're going to target civilians too, then yes, of course, it's a no-brainer that the death toll would be higher.

Are you starting to get the idea that I'm opposed to attacking civilians?

I do oppose use of "the bomb". I particularly dislike the fact that we used it in WWII. And I really dislike the idea that, by their own admission, civilians would have been targeted as an alternative. And I really, really, hate the fact that civilians WERE targeted anyway.

"Civilians are gonna die if we don't use the bomb."
"We will use the bomb to kill civilians."
I mean, WTF?

Those decision-makers were the ones who should have been on war-crime trial as they were the ones issuing the orders.

But, like Bill says, the winners make the rules.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

• Quote

[jclalor 12]

Quote

***

Quote

I'm totally with Bill on this one.

Quote

***

Quote

Being a guard in a place that murdered 28,000 people is a bit different than murdering 28,000 people. Still a crime, but one of omission, not action.

Paul Tibbets killed 140,000 innocent civilians in a much more direct manner than this guy. But since he was on the winning side, he got a medal instead of jail time.

Quote

You do realize the number of Japanese civilian deaths that would have resulted in the American invasion of Japan?

So...in order to justify using "the bomb", they admitted that they were going to go in and kill civilians as the alternative.

Do you not see a problem with that?

Quote

Some estimates were as high as 5 million. It's real easy to second guess them now.

Key word, "estimates". Their justification sounded more like "targets" than "estimates".

Quote

If we had not used the bombs and millions of civilians died during an invasion, people would be saying that by not nuking them, that would have made us responsible for even more deaths.

Why sure! If we're going to target civilians too, then yes, of course, it's a no-brainer that the death toll would be higher.

Are you starting to get the idea that I'm opposed to attacking civilians?

I do oppose use of "the bomb". I particularly dislike the fact that we used it in WWII. And I really dislike the idea that, by their own admission, civilians would have been targeted as an alternative. And I really, really, hate the fact that civilians WERE targeted anyway.

"Civilians are gonna die if we don't use the bomb."
"We will use the bomb to kill civilians."
I mean, WTF?

Those decision-makers were the ones who should have been on war-crime trial as they were the ones issuing the orders.

But, like Bill says, the winners make the rules.

No one said anything about going in and targeting civilians, Perhaps you might remember that the vast majority in Japan thought their emperor was nothing short of a living God and would have gladly sacrificed their life for him. The smallest estimates of unavoidable civilian deaths were still in the millions and in the hundreds of thousands for US troops. Look at all the civilians who jumped to their death with their children or used other means for suicide on Okinawa, a very large portion of the civilians who lived there killed themselves. How many on the main island would have killed themselves during an invasion?



It seems to me the US had two choices: a shitty one, and a really shitty one. they picked the shitty one.

I guess using your analogy, if a fully fueled hijacked 747 was heading towards the super bowl, it would be wrong to shoot it down.

• Quote