Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:58 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Werd's comment however related to the Hanning trial, which was this past year. His charge was that Hanning is prohibited through § 130 from availing himself of certain defenses and that he was compelled to admit to the mass killings by § 130. Pre- § 130 trials are a different matter.


Gen Baugher from Scrapbookpages made the argument in relation to the Stangl Trial, which was in 1970, 20 years before the law was passed. LOL


I remember that. I think I pointed out (or someone did) that such a law didn't exist during Stangl's Trial.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balsamo » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:38 pm

Statmec:

That's not the topic. The topic is someone facing an accessory charge to murders committed during the Holocaust.


LOL,
I have realized that after posting.
My post had only purely theoretical intend. Not specifically about the Hanning trial...

hence my "oups".

But on a purely theoretical field, Hanning defense would have never been in a position to even consider challenging the fact that Jews were murdered in gas chambers. This being a "JUDICIAL TRUTH" (aside being a historical one which in this case is of no consequence), so purely theoretically, even if he had wanted to try it - which has probably never been the case - tried to defend himself by challenging the core of the accusation, he would not only have been sentenced in his current trial, but would have faced another one, along with his lawyers, for denial.

And given that the sentence given to denial criminals are quite close to people sentenced for complicity of the murder of 170.000 people, this is purely not an option.

I did not follow those trials, although i have made it clear i was not supporting them, so of course, he offered a defense - i don't care - but theoretically again, it is a truth that he WAS LIMITED in his choice, and that HAD HE WANTED TO CHALLENGE the core accusation of mass murder having taken place at Birkenau, HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD the possibility. that is all i am saying.

That being said, and i have asked the question many times on codoh, i am not aware of any indicted Nazi having played the DENIAL CARD in court.
And indeed, they are still free to plead ignorance, not to have been involved personally, etc.

Statmec:

That's even more bizarre. I haven't seen examples of what Werd and Balsamo claim here - but if Balsamo can show them, I will happily admit to being mistaken.


As i said above, i don't think there is any example of a indicted Nazi having been tempted to play the denial card. So in this regard, Werd argument fall flat.
Actually the only case that comes to my mind is Sylvia Stolz when she defended Zundel in Germany. She played the Denial card, with the result that her client got the maximum sentence (5 years) and that her, as a lawyer, got a 3 years sentence for her defense.
So i can only assume that it would be quite difficult to find a German lawyer to adopt such a defense.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 15039
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:49 pm

Balsamo wrote:I did not follow those trials, although i have made it clear i was not supporting them, so of course, he offered a defense - i don't care - but theoretically again, it is a truth that he WAS LIMITED in his choice, and that HAD HE WANTED TO CHALLENGE the core accusation of mass murder having taken place at Birkenau, HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD the possibility. that is all i am saying.

But I'm asking how you know that. Has the situation occurred?

Thought experiment: Years ago, but after the enactment of § 130, former SS-man Wilhelm Z. was charged with being an accomplice to a mass murder involving gas vans outside the city of "Bjelizow" on account of his being a member of Einsatzkommando F (or F troop?). Assume that F troop was known to have killed using gas vans elsewhere, that there were no prior trials involving the allegation of mass murder at Bjelizow, and that the historical literature on whether a mass murder occurred at Bjelizow, and if it did, who carried it out and how, is mixed. As I read Werd, Wilhelm Z. is forced on the basis of § 130 to affirm the mass murder at Bjelizow and is prevented from offering as a defense, for example, that no such mass murder occurred or that the Soviets carried out a murder at Bjelizow.

This is what I think Werd claimed. I don't think this is true - I don't know what cases are said to prove it true. I'm happy to be proven wrong, in which case I'll say I was wrong.

The thought experiment can then be replayed for mass murders previously litigated, etc.

Balsamo wrote:That being said, and i have asked the question many times on codoh, i am not aware of any indicted Nazi having played the DENIAL CARD in court.

Ah, ok, that is what I thought. That's really my point: Werd offers this up conclusively . . . but I'm not aware of its having been tested. Nor of § 130 coming up in such contexts.

That said, one reason the defense has not been made, or made so rarely that we don't know about it, is that it's a particularly bad defense given the facts of the cases we know about. It might be a good defense in "the Bjelizow case," though.

And indeed, they are still free to plead ignorance, not to have been involved personally, etc.

Balsamo wrote:Actually the only case that comes to my mind is Sylvia Stolz when she defended Zundel in Germany. She played the Denial card, with the result that her client got the maximum sentence (5 years) and that her, as a lawyer, got a 3 years sentence for her defense.
So i can only assume that it would be quite difficult to find a German lawyer to adopt such a defense.

But I thought she got the penalty for her courtroom deportment? For contempt-worthy comments about the judges? For disruptions in courts? No? But, again, this isn't analogous to the Hanning case.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balsamo » Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:29 pm

But I thought she got the penalty for her courtroom deportment?


:lol:

Understatement, she accused the IMT of being a Talmudic inquisition, that the Holocaust is the biggest lie in world's history...Yes one can call that "deportment" i guess. Actually the law is quite clear, expression of denial in public is a criminal offense, so if you deny in court, you do commit a crime within the courtroom, and this can be assimilate to "deportment".

I am pretty sure that a trial such as Irving vs Lipstadt would not have been possible in Germany.
But i can ask a German lawyer if you want.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 15039
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:43 pm

Balsamo wrote:
But I thought she got the penalty for her courtroom deportment?


:lol:

Understatement, she accused the IMT of being a Talmudic inquisition, that the Holocaust is the biggest lie in world's history...Yes one can call that "deportment" i guess. Actually the law is quite clear, expression of denial in public is a criminal offense, so if you deny in court, you do commit a crime within the courtroom, and this can be assimilate to "deportment".

I am pretty sure that a trial such as Irving vs Lipstadt would not have been possible in Germany.
But i can ask a German lawyer if you want.

I'd be curious, thanks. You probably know that I would prefer that someone dumb enough to claim a defense like "mass murder didn't occur at Sobibór" be able to use it.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
NathanC
Poster
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby NathanC » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:08 am

IIRC right after the war a lot of Defendants played the Denial card. In KL, Waschmann cited Austrian courts who dismissed Testimony as "Hateful Jewish lies". This was in the late 40s to early 50s.

There's also the Majdanek trial. The (government backed) defence attorneys had no problem using Neo Nazi/Denier historians in court. It was mentioned that they even disputed that there was a "planned final solution".

Sounds like before 130, they were free to do whatever they wanted.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 15039
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:57 am

NathanC wrote:IIRC right after the war a lot of Defendants played the Denial card. In KL, Waschmann cited Austrian courts who dismissed Testimony as "Hateful Jewish lies". This was in the late 40s to early 50s.

There's also the Majdanek trial. The (government backed) defence attorneys had no problem using Neo Nazi/Denier historians in court. It was mentioned that they even disputed that there was a "planned final solution".

Sounds like before 130, they were free to do whatever they wanted.

Yes, as you say, denial-type defenses were used by some defendants. There's an anti-denier canard I sometimes encounter that says no perpetrator denied mass murder, etc, which is wrong.

To my focus, I feel certain, from what I've read, that after § 130, defendants are not compelled to make affirmations of that which they didn't witness, etc, as Werd claimed - what I do not know (and honestly believe it is not really a big issue, given the nuttiness of the some of the possible defenses) is how § 130 has been applied to defendants in criminal cases.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4311
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:23 am

Balsamo wrote:Understatement, she accused the IMT of being a Talmudic inquisition, that the Holocaust is the biggest lie in world's history...Yes one can call that "deportment" i guess.


Am I the only one here who is happy she got penalized? In my opinion freedom of speech in inapplicable to the idiotic and malevolent. No, those are not subjective designations either.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:54 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Balsamo wrote:Understatement, she accused the IMT of being a Talmudic inquisition, that the Holocaust is the biggest lie in world's history...Yes one can call that "deportment" i guess.


Am I the only one here who is happy she got penalized? In my opinion freedom of speech in inapplicable to the idiotic and malevolent. No, those are not subjective designations either.


It's a bit of a slippery slope. So, she's a dumb#%! like all deniers.
But, is being a dumb#%! a criminal offense? I'd say not. Making a martyr out of her is not the solution, it simply gives a her public platform to spew her craziness out. That attracts those susceptible to martyrs and crazy people.

Plus, I really am a free speech advocate. I have no sympathy for those who break the law but I've never been comfortable with HD laws. I realize that what deniers say is painful to survivors and their relatives and their distortion of history pisses me off. But, having an uncomfortable or painful opinion is no reason to stifle speech.

That being said I have no sympathy for those who advocate violence.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18943
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:13 am

I somehow don't think she'd gotten into any (or that kind of) trouble had she spewed her garbage while on a bus or in some pub... :-P

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balsamo » Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:00 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:I somehow don't think she'd gotten into any (or that kind of) trouble had she spewed her garbage while on a bus or in some pub... :-P


Actually, i am not that sure. A public bus or a pub are indeed "public places". Besides, i almost sure (but not 100%) that the law has been extended to "private sphere" also.

To the question was she sentenced for court contempt, i don't think so, as no one in Europe ever got 3,5 years in Jail for that offense. The maximum penalty in France, for example, is 2 years.

Regarding the issue of freedom of speech, it is quite complex. The German law used to make the distinction between "simple denial" and "qualified denial", the last involving an accusation of conspiracy, for example accusing the Jews to having made that up, while "simple denial being only to contest the holocaust without accusing anyone. I don't know if that has been changed.

In the case of Stolz, there is a clear crime of "defamation" which has always constituted a criminal offense. In this case, the accusation is important enough to be assimilated to "incitement to racial hatred" which also pre-existed anti denial laws.
In any case, i am pretty sure that a courtroom is also considered as a public place, so even a "simple denial" would have been enough to put her into trouble.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balsamo » Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:19 pm

NathanC wrote:IIRC right after the war a lot of Defendants played the Denial card. In KL, Waschmann cited Austrian courts who dismissed Testimony as "Hateful Jewish lies". This was in the late 40s to early 50s.

There's also the Majdanek trial. The (government backed) defence attorneys had no problem using Neo Nazi/Denier historians in court. It was mentioned that they even disputed that there was a "planned final solution".

Sounds like before 130, they were free to do whatever they wanted.


I have Wachsmann's book and will look into it.
Do you have more details on the Majdanek trial? (you mean the Dusseldorf trial?)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 15039
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:33 pm

from Tom Bower, Blind Eye to Murder: Britain, America & the Purging of Nazi Germany - A Pledge Betrayed, posted at HC, on the Düsseldorf trial:
It was only on 26 November 1975 that the trial finally started. It was originally expected to last one year. Billed as the last of the great Nazi trials, the prosecutors believed the evidence to be incontrovertible. Over 1,000 survivors had been interviewed. Of those, 260 had been selected as having actually seen one of the defendants commit murder. The German courts insist that there must be an eyewitness to the act of murder. Hearsay or supposition is insufficient. Yet at the end of the first year only sixteen of the 260 witnesses had been heard. Judge Bogen was confronted by the obstructive tactics of the government-paid defence lawyers, intent on using the trial for their own purposes. He consistently refused to limit their attempts to disprove the existence of the Final Solution.

Exploiting the procedural rules which were drafted to prevent a repetition of the shotgun trials of the Third Reich, the defence lawyers embarked on a daily ritual, submitting endless challenges against the prosecution's introduction of evidence, and introducing evidence designed, not to clarify the issues or bolster their client's defence, but to rewrite the history of the Nazi era.

Hans Mundorf, defending Braunsteiner, seized every possible opportunity during the first eighteen months to challenge the evidence that human corpses had been burnt in the crematoria. Every witness was asked whether they knew the difference between the smell of burning human and animal flesh. Veterinary doctors were called to testify that those outside the crematoria would not know the difference.

Ludwig Bock, the thirty-eight-year-old lawyer defending Lachert, went even further and called witnesses, all of them neo-Nazi historians, to disprove that there had ever been a planned Final Solution. With a conviction that goes beyond purely professional duty to a client, he insisted that no one, including animals was gassed at Majdanek. 'Even if there were gas chambers at Majdanek,' he told the author, 'it doesn't mean that they were the reason for the death of a lot of people, because it is possible that the gas chambers were used to clean clothes.'4 Bock, who claimed that Lachert went to Majdanek as if it was just another job, 'like being a cook in a kitchen', insisted that she had no idea that anyone was being gassed or killed in the camp. That defence did not prevent him demanding, when a former inmate explained how she had been forced by a defendant to carry Zyklon B gas to the gas chambers, that the witness be charged as an accomplice to murder.

Hermann Stolting, who defended another of the accused, Hermine Böttcher, has a Nazi record of his own to explain. As a wartime prosecutor in a special court in Bromberg, Poland, he 'persuaded' the court to give a series of death sentences for trivial offences like a farmer's illegal killing of six pigs. Today he unrepentantly justifies those sentences: 'If both the circumstances and the law were the same today, I would do the same again.' 5 He points to his chairmanship of the German Animal Welfare Society as proof of his humanitarianism.

When the lawyers were not rewriting history, they were cruelly denigrating the survivors and their testimony. Credibility is hard to establish at the best of times, but thirty-five years after the event it is often impossible to remember the exact details which the defence lawyers always demanded. Time, date, place, the exact words, the precise movements of every person in the drama, the position of the lorry in relation to the hut, or was it a cart, the final curse of the girl who was hanged by Lachert. 'How can you be sure that the girl did not push the stool away herself?' 'Did you see Lichert throw the children into the crematoria?'

These tactics have paid off handsomely. While the average trial in 1962 lasted 3.6 years, in 1978 the average had risen to 12.5 years.6 As the trials grow longer, the witnesses' memories become feebler; not surprisingly, they are less robust than the accused. They are beginning to die off. In September 1977, enough survivors could still remember. But the court is also faced with the insolence of witnesses who could themselves be among the accused.

(Pyrrho: let me know if this excerpt is too long for fair use; I will edit and summarize if need be.)
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 15039
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:41 pm

Reinhold Hanning has died at 95.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:48 pm



User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 15039
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:55 am

"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:34 pm




I'm really surprised by this. I didn't think he'd serve any time.

I'm still against these court proceedings. Convicting a bookkeeper or a radio operator is wrong, these people went where they were assigned. It was their misfortune to wind up in Auschwitz. Groening even applied for a transfer out but this was denied. His only other option was desertion which was a death sentence.

No, better to sit down them down and record their experiences, encourage other surviving guards or radio operators to come out and talk about what they experienced while there is still time.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 15039
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:54 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:



I'm really surprised by this. I didn't think he'd serve any time.

I'm still against these court proceedings. Convicting a bookkeeper or a radio operator is wrong, these people went where they were assigned. It was their misfortune to wind up in Auschwitz. Groening even applied for a transfer out but this was denied. His only other option was desertion which was a death sentence.

No, better to sit down them down and record their experiences, encourage other surviving guards or radio operators to come out and talk about what they experienced while there is still time.

How much smarter the court would have been to sentence him to do some outreach against HD, as he was doing anyway.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4311
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:16 pm



Are you {!#%@} kidding me?!?!?!?!??!?!?! This is maybe the most outrageous thing that I have ever read in a long time. That poor man. He spoke out against HD and this is what he gets. Demanjuk was a different matter altogether because he was unrepentant, feed him to the dogs by all means, but Groning deserves clemency.
Last edited by Jeff_36 on Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4311
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:21 pm

The prosecutor’s office said Wednesday that it had rejected his lawyers’ appeal, but they may try to appeal again because they claim he had not been physically examined for the medical report.


Yes, please do.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 15039
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:47 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:. . . This is maybe the most outrageous thing that I have ever read in a long time. . . .

Re-read Saggy's post on Liepaja.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4311
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:02 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:. . . This is maybe the most outrageous thing that I have ever read in a long time. . . .

Re-read Saggy's post on Liepaja.


I haven't had the time to, but LeoMajor told me that it was basically the non-sequitur to end all non sequiturs. He was quite mad the Saggy did not reply to his post and described him as repetitive and ignorant.

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:02 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:



I'm really surprised by this. I didn't think he'd serve any time.

I'm still against these court proceedings. Convicting a bookkeeper or a radio operator is wrong, these people went where they were assigned. It was their misfortune to wind up in Auschwitz. Groening even applied for a transfer out but this was denied. His only other option was desertion which was a death sentence.

No, better to sit down them down and record their experiences, encourage other surviving guards or radio operators to come out and talk about what they experienced while there is still time.

Seems like the pendulum has swung the other way - from refusing to investigate the main perpetrators, setting them free or giving them a few hours per murder they now go after small cogs.

The legal theory behind that is laid out here:

https://nebenklage-auschwitz.de/categor ... s-nestler/

"So lange hat es gedauert, bis der Ansatz von Fritz Bauer wieder zum Ausgangspunkt eines Strafverfahrens geworden ist. Bauer schrieb: „Die Tätigkeit eines jeden Mitglieds eines Vernichtungslagers stellt vom Eintritt in das Lager (…)bis zu seinem Ausscheiden“ eine Tat dar, „was auch immer er physisch zur Verwaltung des Lagers und damit zu Endlösung beigetragen hat.“

Die Konsequenz dieser Feststellung ist einfach: Auschwitz war ein Ort, an dem man nicht mitmachen durfte."

Of course, by this logic one could indict almost every single wartime German adult, aside from those who were in the resistance. They were, after all, little cogs in the Nazi state.
Last edited by Sergey_Romanov on Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 15039
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:16 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:. . . This is maybe the most outrageous thing that I have ever read in a long time. . . .

Re-read Saggy's post on Liepaja.


I haven't had the time to, but LeoMajor told me that it was basically the non-sequitur to end all non sequiturs. He was quite mad the Saggy did not reply to his post and described him as repetitive and ignorant.

And he justifies the massacres of Latvian Jews. I am against this verdict and sentence but there are worse outrages on this planet.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balsamo » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:17 pm

Except that one of them was made by an idiot, the other by a National legal justice system...
Saggy is almost non-existent. He found a life writing imbecilities on fora on the internet...From the few post i have read, Saggy is completely deranged...a case to be left to psychologists. All i could say about such a specimen would be redundant, actually.

On the other hand, in this case, those decisions have a direct effect on the German / European Societies, present and future.
I was already opposing the verdict, but this decision - that being 96 years old is not a medical excuse for purging a 4 years sentence is inhumane. Even country with the worst corrupted judicial system would not have dared to state such a silliness.

I completely share Jeff's anger on this.

And the lack of protests, indignation shows how lobotomized and short-seeing Europeans have become.
Of course, they reassure themselves by saying " It is the holocaust, it was at Auschwitz, he is a Nazi" - so i am not concerned.
They just do not realize that it sets a amazing judicial precedent: 96 years old is not a good reason for not going to Jail! This will be the judicial precedent! And it is insane absolutely.

Those doctors as well as the prosecutor should be ashamed of themselves, they are irresponsible! Actually, the doctors should be banned from their profession as they have forgot their own fundamental oath. Shame on them!

Groning has been honest all along, and by telling the truth has done more to defy Denierism than many who just chose to keep silent. His verdict was already a shame, but this decision goes a step further. A step that will affect everyone in the future.

Where the {!#%@} is "democracy" heading???

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4311
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:53 am

Balsamo wrote:And the lack of protests, indignation shows how lobotomized and short-seeing Europeans have become.


I disagree with you on that. the case has not gotten any publicity outside of Germany, and I imagine that opinion there is very divided. I have fb friends from the Netherlands and they have never heard of the trial.

I would not condemn the entire German system - which was very lenient to Nazis in the 50's, 60's and 70's if you recall (Erich Fuchs, who literally killed about 300,000 people with his own hand, received IIRC a shorter sentence than poor Groning). I condemn this ruling and I hope that it is appealed.


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jeffk 1970 and 1 guest