Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:24 pm

From Jeff’s story:

as Germany races against time to bring elderly suspects from the Hitler era to trial before they die.


It’s this “race” that I find so ridiculous, it’s what causes the rush to indict radio operators and guards.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:43 pm

I still have mixed feelings; on this Majdanek chap, I want to read more of what he specifically is said to have done and what the evidence against him is. In any case, I save CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE for Erntefest, not for the predicament of Erntefest perpetrators decades after the fact. For all we know, he's been sitting around smirking at what he got away with.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeff_36 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:46 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I still have mixed feelings; on this Majdanek chap, I want to read more of what he specifically is said to have done and what the evidence against him is. In any case, I save CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE for Erntefest, not for the predicament of Erntefest perpetrators decades after the fact. For all we know, he's been sitting around smirking at what he got away with.


He was a tower guard. I was under the impression that HSSPF personnel from Lublin and surrounding districts carried out Erntfest, and that the camp personnel at Majdanek were under the supervision of the WVHA.

And even if he was a direct perpetrator - The optics are incredibly bad.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:58 pm

So you've read all the evidence against the man charged?

If he was a direct perpetrator - and I do not draw the distinction you seem to between cordoning off the camp and firing fatal bullets - the optics and facts are bad for him.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balmoral95 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:06 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I still have mixed feelings; on this Majdanek chap, I want to read more of what he specifically is said to have done and what the evidence against him is. In any case, I save CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE for Erntefest, not for the predicament of Erntefest perpetrators decades after the fact. For all we know, he's been sitting around smirking at what he got away with.


He was a tower guard. I was under the impression that HSSPF personnel from Lublin and surrounding districts carried out Erntfest, and that the camp personnel at Majdanek were under the supervision of the WVHA.

And even if he was a direct perpetrator - The optics are incredibly bad.


"optics"? WTF, dude.

I guess the "optic were bad to a lot of folk when a former Heisman recipient and third rate actor chopped his ex-wife's head off. How dare anyone prosecute him for that.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balsamo » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:12 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:So you've read all the evidence against the man charged?

If he was a direct perpetrator - and I do not draw the distinction you seem to between cordoning off the camp and firing fatal bullets - the optics and facts are bad for him.


I think that what Jeff is trying to say is that if this 96 years old had been a direct perpetrator he should have been put on trial a long time ago - and if i may add, if that was the case, it should be the German Justice system that should be tried - while the result, given the current context, of this action against someone at the doors of death anyway, will only result in more defiance toward the Justice.

As a side note - i wondered where to place this one - i have just seen a documentary that showed how Germany, and its Justice, were fighting against pedophilia.
Well, in this case, it is the first country in continental Europe that chose to be preemptive, that is to consider that it is disease, and that the potential criminal should be treated like patient BEFORE they commit a crime.
This approach is base on the assessment that a very high percentage of those pedophile treated before they act, would actually never act after.
So far - it is fairly recent - 5000 natural pedophiles chose to enter the program which is of course free and confidential.

Well, this news provoked quite a fuss in France, where such an experiment is not going to happen any time soon, but nevertheless- they don't even want to even talk about euthanasia - this "pragmatic approach" (Bobbo?) seems to work.

Sorry, if i offense anyone, but this is the German side i really like. It breaks taboo, dares to explore new ways, so how and why the hell, the same system cannot adopt a same new approach to deal with whatever is related to its Nazi past is beyond me.

At a time when the new generation of Germans just wants to free itself from a past they cannot identify itself with, this send a really bad message from which only confusion can result.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:13 am

Balmoral95 wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I still have mixed feelings; on this Majdanek chap, I want to read more of what he specifically is said to have done and what the evidence against him is. In any case, I save CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE for Erntefest, not for the predicament of Erntefest perpetrators decades after the fact. For all we know, he's been sitting around smirking at what he got away with.


He was a tower guard. I was under the impression that HSSPF personnel from Lublin and surrounding districts carried out Erntfest, and that the camp personnel at Majdanek were under the supervision of the WVHA.

And even if he was a direct perpetrator - The optics are incredibly bad.


"optics"? WTF, dude.

I guess the "optic were bad to a lot of folk when a former Heisman recipient and third rate actor chopped his ex-wife's head off. How dare anyone prosecute him for that.


It’s different if he actively participated. Then he gets no sympathy for me.

The problem is, what evidence exists after 70+ years?

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balmoral95 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:50 am

Neither St Mech nor myself is advocating a criminal indictment against someone for merely "being there". And neither of us has any detailed information regarding what evidence the indictment includes. So we see.

Balsamo, what can I say, here it's a penal storage system based on years old notions with no hope of innovation on the horizon. And it's not going to change until the public gets a hard on for the ridiculous cost of it.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:10 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Balmoral95 wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I still have mixed feelings; on this Majdanek chap, I want to read more of what he specifically is said to have done and what the evidence against him is. In any case, I save CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE for Erntefest, not for the predicament of Erntefest perpetrators decades after the fact. For all we know, he's been sitting around smirking at what he got away with.


He was a tower guard. I was under the impression that HSSPF personnel from Lublin and surrounding districts carried out Erntfest, and that the camp personnel at Majdanek were under the supervision of the WVHA.

And even if he was a direct perpetrator - The optics are incredibly bad.


"optics"? WTF, dude.

I guess the "optic were bad to a lot of folk when a former Heisman recipient and third rate actor chopped his ex-wife's head off. How dare anyone prosecute him for that.


It’s different if he actively participated. Then he gets no sympathy for me.

The problem is, what evidence exists after 70+ years?

But the premise of all this CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE is different to that; it is that "these prosecutions" are madness, and no one has posted about the evidence against this man. Nor has anyone defined "active participation." His SS comrades lined the camp's main street, along which the victims were moved as if in an alley. When they reached the south end of the camp, SD and PB 101 shooters killed them. Some Ausfeherinnen participated in gathering the Jews, those who were ill, from the infirmary. Was this active, was it participation?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balmoral95 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:14 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Balmoral95 wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I still have mixed feelings; on this Majdanek chap, I want to read more of what he specifically is said to have done and what the evidence against him is. In any case, I save CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE for Erntefest, not for the predicament of Erntefest perpetrators decades after the fact. For all we know, he's been sitting around smirking at what he got away with.


He was a tower guard. I was under the impression that HSSPF personnel from Lublin and surrounding districts carried out Erntfest, and that the camp personnel at Majdanek were under the supervision of the WVHA.

And even if he was a direct perpetrator - The optics are incredibly bad.


"optics"? WTF, dude.

I guess the "optic were bad to a lot of folk when a former Heisman recipient and third rate actor chopped his ex-wife's head off. How dare anyone prosecute him for that.


It’s different if he actively participated. Then he gets no sympathy for me.

The problem is, what evidence exists after 70+ years?

But the premise of all this CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE is different to that; it is that "these prosecutions" are madness, and no one has posted about the evidence against this man. Nor has anyone defined "active participation." His SS comrades lined the camp's main street, along which the victims were moved as if in an alley. When they reached the south end of the camp, SD and PB 101 shooters killed them. Some Ausfeherinnen participated in gathering the Jews, those who were ill, from the infirmary. Was this active, was it participation?


I don't agree with the "madness" notion just because a defendant somehow dodged prosecution for murder for eons and is of tender agedness.

Well, is "watching" participation"? Is is it tacit acceptance? Is it conspiracy to commit murder?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:18 am

Balmoral95 wrote:Neither St Mech nor myself is advocating a criminal indictment against someone for merely "being there". And neither of us has any detailed information regarding what evidence the indictment includes. So we see.

I'm with you on this.

One news report includes an item from the prosecutor's statement, which already differs to what Jeff_36 wrote, "By being part of a chain of guards and a tower guard, he made a contribution to [the Erntefest] and knowingly and willingly supported the malicious and cruel acts." The prosecutor's statement also alleges, "According to the evidence available, the accused knew about the cruelty of the organised mass killings, just like all other members of the SS at the camp." And: "He also knew that these people, facing their fate innocently and defencelessly, were killed for inhuman reasons based on race."

Again, who has seen this evidence? Or is the argument that is being made that this evidence should not be considered on account of age, a kind of backdoor stature of limitations?

It is my fervent belief, which could be wrong, that none of us writing here knows what the prosecutors have as evidence. So I find it a little odd, unless I am wrong, to be reading conclusions based on what the evidence is. I also question how well the neat conclusions here have been mapped back to known particulars concerning Erntefest. It is potentially saying far too little to argue, as Jeff_36 did, that the HSSPF personnel carried out the action whilst Camp staff were under the WVHA. In the first place, Majdanek was under a hybrid command - WVHA and SSPF. Sporrenberg testified about this - but it is well known and often explained in the literature. Globus was, in Kranz's word, "hegemonic" with regard to his stake in Majdanek.

The Erntefest killing operation was planned by Sporrenberg, not the HSSPF, although Sporrenberg consulted with Krüger. The units brought into the Lublin area to carry out Erntefest consisted of Waffen SS, Police Regiment 22, Police Regiment 25 including Police Battalion 101, Security Police (Kds) from the Lublin area, and staff of the camps involved (Majdanek, Trawniki, and Poniatowa). Browning writes about how PB 101 lined the street from the highway angling part to Majdanek commandant’s house to the inner camp. PB 101 members also lined the street leading to the actual killing site. The shooters were SD men brought in from Lublin - some testimony says that they volunteered for 2 liters of vodka and 200-400 cigarettes. I believe that the SD Sonderkommando numbered over 100 men - IIRC Sporrenberg said 150 and that they may have been augmented by what he called Volksdeutsche units.

But there are complications to this neat picture - that is, that the Camp SS were uninvolved, Sporrenberg in command and using only his men. For example, Ausfeherinnen from Majdanek, riding bicycles, helped bring Jews from the sorting camp at the old airport. As noted, Camp Ausfeherinnen also rousted sick Jewish inmates. Ausfeherinnen later testified that they were all locked into their quarters and only later told by some of the Camp SS (one of these men may have been Reinartz) what exactly had occurred. But some Ausfeherinnen later recalled some of their number helping in selections and collection of victims. One Camp SS man testified about how camp staff celebrated with booze the night of the action: “Lausberg and Gehr bragging about having taken part in the executions voluntarily, and about having shot the ‘bums’ (Jews) . . . I remember that Lausberg’s boots were bloody.” There was testimony that Camp SS man Lauritz participated in Erntefest. SS men with dogs searched for Jewish prisoners who had hidden themselves. Camp SS, under Muhsfeldt’s command, supervised burning of the corpses. The graves had been dug in late October under his supervision, by inmates. According to Muhsfeldt, Majdanek commandant Thumann was involved in the planning and execution of the action.

This more complicated picture could well fit with what the prosecutor's statement maintains about the unnamed guard's role and actions. (Here is a news story from 2014, referenced above, on 20 Majdanek guards still alive and being investigated by the German war crimes office.)
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:24 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Balmoral95 wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I still have mixed feelings; on this Majdanek chap, I want to read more of what he specifically is said to have done and what the evidence against him is. In any case, I save CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE for Erntefest, not for the predicament of Erntefest perpetrators decades after the fact. For all we know, he's been sitting around smirking at what he got away with.


He was a tower guard. I was under the impression that HSSPF personnel from Lublin and surrounding districts carried out Erntfest, and that the camp personnel at Majdanek were under the supervision of the WVHA.

And even if he was a direct perpetrator - The optics are incredibly bad.


"optics"? WTF, dude.

I guess the "optic were bad to a lot of folk when a former Heisman recipient and third rate actor chopped his ex-wife's head off. How dare anyone prosecute him for that.


It’s different if he actively participated. Then he gets no sympathy for me.

The problem is, what evidence exists after 70+ years?

But the premise of all this CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE is different to that; it is that "these prosecutions" are madness, and no one has posted about the evidence against this man. Nor has anyone defined "active participation." His SS comrades lined the camp's main street, along which the victims were moved as if in an alley. When they reached the south end of the camp, SD and PB 101 shooters killed them. Some Ausfeherinnen participated in gathering the Jews, those who were ill, from the infirmary. Was this active, was it participation?


I’d want to know more about this before making an answer.

So, if he guarded prisoners and knew what was going to happen to them, does this make him guilty? Did he abuse prisoners on their way to their deaths, does this make him guilty?

Well, if he beat prisoners in line, stole from them, raped female prisoners, etc, then yes, to me this is guilt. The man committed atrocities against helpless men and women.

But, guarding them? If he was ordered to do this by his superiors, could he refuse, knowing what might happen? What were the consequences of refusal?
You then get into something more complicated. Is guarding condemned prisoners a crime? I don’t think so but that’s my opinion.

Then we get into the evidentiary part. There is little to no chance there is any physical evidence tying him to any crime, though we know one occurred. So, then we have eyewitness testimony and the records of him serving at the camp. OK, so he served there and was there on those days. What part did he take in Operation Enterfest? If he gathered sick prisoners together and marched them out of the infirmary, knowing what was going to happen, does that make him guilty? Well, did some superior order him to do this or did he decide to do it on his own, getting a perverse pleasure out of it? What proof exists that he did this? Are we going to rely on eyewitness testimony? Well, I question anyone’s eyewitness testimony after 70 years.

To me the issue with sweeping up all these “little fish” is what evidence exists they actually committed a crime. I don’t think being at a large camp like Auschwitz or Majdanek is evidence of a crime. Guards did commit cruelties in these camps but not all of them did. I question the legality of simply lumping all these men and women together.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:35 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I’d want to know more about this before making an answer.

Here's my problem: a rush to call this prosecution "madness" before knowing more about it.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:So, if he guarded prisoners and knew what was going to happen to them, does this make him guilty? Did he abuse prisoners on their way to their deaths, does this make him guilty?

Well, if he beat prisoners in line, stole from them, raped female prisoners, etc, then yes, to me this is guilt. The man committed atrocities against helpless men and women.

I disagree, and feel sure that a court would too, that abusing the prisoners is the dividing line: if he, as charged, is shown to have knowingly carried out duties necessary to the mass murder, he should be guilty of at least being an accessory to murder whether he abused the victims or not. Murder is kind of serious without abuse. (The man is being charged with being an accessory to murder.)

Jeffk 1970 wrote:But, guarding them? If he was ordered to do this by his superiors, could he refuse, knowing what might happen? What were the consequences of refusal?
You then get into something more complicated. Is guarding condemned prisoners a crime? I don’t think so but that’s my opinion.

Guarding them . . . what does that mean? Forming a gauntlet to facilitate their being marched to the killing site? That's supposed to be ok? Uh-unh.

It actually seems - not totally clear - that volunteers were sought for Erntefest.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Then we get into the evidentiary part. There is little to no chance there is any physical evidence tying him to any crime, though we know one occurred. So, then we have eyewitness testimony and the records of him serving at the camp. OK, so he served there and was there on those days. What part did he take in Operation Enterfest? If he gathered sick prisoners together and marched them out of the infirmary, knowing what was going to happen, does that make him guilty? Well, did some superior order him to do this or did he decide to do it on his own, getting a perverse pleasure out of it? What proof exists that he did this? Are we going to rely on eyewitness testimony? Well, I question anyone’s eyewitness testimony after 70 years.

I don't know, and you don't know, and that is what the institutions and processes of criminal justice are for.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:To me the issue with sweeping up all these “little fish” is what evidence exists they actually committed a crime.

By declaring that this madness must stop, you take the side of insuring that we will never know what evidence against them exists. Convict him, or exonerate him, on the evidence, not presuppositions about "madness" and a dismissal of evidence not yet seen.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I don’t think being at a large camp like Auschwitz or Majdanek is evidence of a crime. Guards did commit cruelties in these camps but not all of them did. I question the legality of simply lumping all these men and women together.

None of this is germane to what I read about this case: again, "By being part of a chain of guards and a tower guard, he made a contribution to [the Erntefest] and knowingly and willingly supported the malicious and cruel acts." "According to the evidence available, the accused knew about the cruelty of the organised mass killings, just like all other members of the SS at the camp." "He also knew that these people, facing their fate innocently and defencelessly, were killed for inhuman reasons based on race."
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:38 am

It actually seems - not totally clear - that volunteers were sought for Erntefest.



If this man stepped forward and volunteered to corral prisoners and force them away to their deaths, well, then, he acted of his own free will. Then it wasn’t about being ordered to guard condemned prisoners, he knew what he was doing.

By declaring that this madness must stop,


When did I do that?
My objection, as stated, is that this “race” to find people to charge for crimes that happened 70 + years ago:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25437&start=120

I’m a reasonable fellow, Stat Mech. I’ve read your links on this, I now know that in some cases the prosecutor’s looked at 200 people and only charged 3 with crimes. To me this sounds legitimate, not some last ditch effort to salve guilty consciences or gain political favor.

you take the side of insuring that we will never know what evidence against them exists. Convict him, or exonerate him, on the evidence, not presuppositions about "madness" and a dismissal of evidence not yet seen.


Which I’ve said, BTW. My only question is what evidence still exists that these people committed a crime. I now know that German prosecutors really do look at this hard and make a serious determination on who they do and do not charge.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:47 am

Well, I’m reasonable except to deniers.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeff_36 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:17 am

Balmoral95 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Balmoral95 wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I still have mixed feelings; on this Majdanek chap, I want to read more of what he specifically is said to have done and what the evidence against him is. In any case, I save CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE for Erntefest, not for the predicament of Erntefest perpetrators decades after the fact. For all we know, he's been sitting around smirking at what he got away with.


He was a tower guard. I was under the impression that HSSPF personnel from Lublin and surrounding districts carried out Erntfest, and that the camp personnel at Majdanek were under the supervision of the WVHA.

And even if he was a direct perpetrator - The optics are incredibly bad.


"optics"? WTF, dude.

I guess the "optic were bad to a lot of folk when a former Heisman recipient and third rate actor chopped his ex-wife's head off. How dare anyone prosecute him for that.


It’s different if he actively participated. Then he gets no sympathy for me.

The problem is, what evidence exists after 70+ years?

But the premise of all this CAPITALIZED OUTRAGE is different to that; it is that "these prosecutions" are madness, and no one has posted about the evidence against this man. Nor has anyone defined "active participation." His SS comrades lined the camp's main street, along which the victims were moved as if in an alley. When they reached the south end of the camp, SD and PB 101 shooters killed them. Some Ausfeherinnen participated in gathering the Jews, those who were ill, from the infirmary. Was this active, was it participation?


I don't agree with the "madness" notion just because a defendant somehow dodged prosecution for murder for eons and is of tender agedness.


I would assume that he would have been tried and sentenced to a long prison term or even life in prison in the 60's had that been the case. Everything I have read about Erntfest indicates that PB101, and HSSPF Lublin did the shooting that day, with assistance from HSSPF personnel from other districts. Methinks this guy was basically there on the day and nothing else. A loathsome Nazi animal no doubt but the fact that he is 96 years old makes this look incredibly bad from a PR standpoint.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:24 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
It actually seems - not totally clear - that volunteers were sought for Erntefest.



If this man stepped forward and volunteered to corral prisoners and force them away to their deaths, well, then, he acted of his own free will. Then it wasn’t about being ordered to guard condemned prisoners, he knew what he was doing.

This is not known, yet. The prosecutor said only that he was "willing." But it has long been thought that those involved in Erntefest volunteered for vodka and cigarettes, both those in the various police units brought to the camps and guards inside the camps (Mailänder quotes from a testimony on the latter).

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
By declaring that this madness must stop,


When did I do that?

What I'm reacting to is lumping this case in with others that may be dissimilar and a blanket dismissal of all prosecutions at this point. I took this
Jeffk 1970 wrote:It’s why I agree with Jeff_36, it needs to just stop.

to be agreement with Jeff_36's post that the madness needs to stop.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I’m a reasonable fellow, Stat Mech.

Probably more so than I am! :) You always are, and you always take in all points of view. Mine is that this case is not like the Gröning case and that I don't find it "mad," or even disturbing, for the authorities to dig into this. As with the Demjanjuk case, we may learn more from it than expected.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:25 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Well, I’m reasonable except to deniers.

Nope, you're always reasonable!
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:36 am

Jeff_36 wrote:I would assume that he would have been tried and sentenced to a long prison term or even life in prison in the 60's had that been the case. Everything I have read about Erntfest indicates that PB101, and HSSPF Lublin did the shooting that day, with assistance from HSSPF personnel from other districts. Methinks this guy was basically there on the day and nothing else. A loathsome Nazi animal no doubt but the fact that he is 96 years old makes this look incredibly bad from a PR standpoint.

I posted material on events at Majdanek during Erntefest above that shows you haven't read enough about the Erntefest action at Majdanek - or you'd know that there has long been evidence that Camp SS participated, not just the outside units I listed above.

I posted about individual Camp SS who were involved in the murders - giving three names - and about evidence that Ausfeherinnen were also involved, which undermines your blanket exoneration of Camp SS. Further, I posted about Camp SS partying in the aftermath of the killings to celebrate what they'd helped accomplish.

Also, I feel sure that you don't know, and I know that I don't know, the history of these investigations: remember, the prosecutor's statement said that the man was involved in forming a chain of guards during the operation, not that he was just there, and that he participated willingly and knowingly in a murder of Jews. That pretty much screws your off-handed claims.

You don't even know the man's name - but the prosecutor does and the prosecutor knows what evidence exists about his role and actions. As I said above, some generalized handwaving about the high level operating plan doesn't answer questions about individuals' roles.

The Germans have had a lot of bad optics and bad PR by not seeking justice where they could have - and equally good optics and good PR by seeking justice. I don't know why the "PR" would be bad to bring a participant in mass murder to justice if the evidence bears out the prosecutor's claims. Germany eliminated the statute of limitations on these crimes for a reason, after all. What this isn't is "madness," and continuing careful investigation IMO shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, without knowing the facts and based on the faulty understanding of Erntefest which you've provided.

I really recommend Lawrence Douglas' book on Demjanjuk, The Right Wrong Man, which has some relevance to the supposed "madness" side of this.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:20 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:Well, I’m reasonable except to deniers.

Nope, you're always reasonable!


Odd for someone like (((me))), I know.
:lol:

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balsamo » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:20 pm

Here's my problem: a rush to call this prosecution "madness" before knowing more about it.


Well, it is the prosecution's fault, as we can only base our "reactions" on what is available in the media.
The independent /times of Israel/ :
Prosecutors allege that as a 22-year-old member of the SS's Death's Head division, the man worked as a perimeter guard and in the camp's guard towers.


and

“according to the known evidence, the suspect, as well as all other SS members of the camp, knew of the cruel and organised mass murder”.


That is basically what has been released.

More detailed from Daily Sabah Europe:
"According to the evidence available, the accused knew about the cruelty of the organized mass killings, just like all other members of the SS at the camp,"

"He knowingly and willingly contributed to these insidious and cruel acts," added the prosecutors.


Now, from my humble point of view, the madness is to be found in the conclusion of this article:
All these recent cases were tried using a new standard of evidence: that it was sufficient to work at a death camp to be prosecuted,[b] even without proof of a link to specific deaths[/b]


Especially the bolded part!

Now, another issue would be: If the evidence were available before, why did the Justice waited so long before indicting the guilty? What i mean here is : Is the indictments the result of fresh new evidence or the result of this new and quite "insane" interpretation of Justice that no proof is needed to link a suspect to specific deaths?

If the answer addresses the first question: Then there is a terrible incompetence issue within the German Justice and some prosecution offices as well as its members should maybe be investigated for "covering crimes against humanity".
If it is the second: then i confirms that we are dealing with a psychopathic way of rendering Justice, as no good will come out of it, quite the contrary.
One of the definition of madness is "repeating the same thing while expecting different results".

That being said, if the prosecution can bring the evidence that the suspect indeed and without doubt volunteered to participate to the shooting in exchange for Vodka/cigarettes (or for whatever reason, actually), then i would revise my position.

Until then, given the poor level of information we were given, i stand with both Jeff's: it is madness.

EDIT: (sorry huge storm here)
Statmec:
that is what the institutions and processes of criminal justice are for.


Exactly, and those are what's at stake.
Hence my fundamental questions.

I personally don't care about this former SS guards. As far as i am concerned he should have been in jail since a long time had "the institutions and processes of criminal justice" done their job.
What concerns me is the possibility (and at least the sentiment it can create) that those current procedures
could be an new expression of "exceptional justice", a justice that would only exists for specific crimes, with no real "legal basis" other than the adoption of new "standards of evidence". This stinks.

Sorry, but until further notices, we are quite close to the abject notion of "collective guilt", and we know better than others what can be the consequences of the acceptation of such a concept.

Statmec:
"By being part of a chain of guards and a tower guard, he made a contribution to [the Erntefest] and knowingly and willingly supported the malicious and cruel acts."


Well, that might sound OK because we are dealing with Nazi extermination camp...But then, if these kind of assumptions should become the expression of "the new standard of evidence", where does and should it stop?
What should be the definition of "malicious" and "cruel" act be...that is in the LAW...?
As it would be needed to turned into a legal norm for everyone...as everyone is equal to the law, right?
So what form would it take?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:04 pm

Balsamo:

He knowingly and willingly contributed to these insidious and cruel acts," added the prosecutors.


This to me is the key, Balsamo. Not knowledge but participation.

Now, from my humble point of view, the madness is to be found in the conclusion of this article:
All these recent cases were tried using a new standard of evidence: that it was sufficient to work at a death camp to be prosecuted,[b] even without proof of a link to specific deaths


That’s an impossibility after all this time. But, if he volunteered to participate, knowing fully well what the end result would be, IMO this is grounds for prosecution. Whether or not this would lead to conviction is a different story altogether.

Until then, given the poor level of information we were given, i stand with both Jeff's: it is madness.


To me there are two different ways of looking at this:

1) Being at a location is not grounds for prosecuting someone. So, for example, let’s say I was assigned to the Death Camp Sobibor as a radio operator or a cook. Now, I did not volunteer, I was assigned to go there. I took no part in any actions, unless ordered to do so, I left the prisoners alone and did my job. Leaving my post is desertion and punishable by a death sentence, I made several requests (or even a single request) for a transfer (successful or not) and it was obvious that I was only there because I was assigned there.

To me this person is not culpable, he was assigned to be at this location. Now, the difference in this scenario is the commanders of these camps. They were in control and therefore came under the concept of Command Responsibility, they were the ones ultimately responsible for whatever happened in the camps.

2) However, being at a location and willingly participating is a different proposition altogether. Let’s go back to my radio operator or cook. Let’s say I actively participate in the abuse of prisoners, I volunteer for actions because I enjoy it or I look for ways to enrich myself at the prisoner’s expense. To me this person went beyond the ordinary duties of his job and is therefore culpable. In the above case, the guard allegedly volunteered to participate to guard condemned prisoners. By volunteering he showed a willingness to participate in an action that led to the deaths of thousands of people. We may never know if he actually killed anyone but he participated in the action.

So, I hope this makes it clear. I agree we need more information about this before forming a coherent opinion.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balsamo » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:33 pm

Actually, then it seems that we are reacting to two different aspects of this case:

as i said, i don't really care about this SS guard as an individual, but about the motivation and the pertinence of those later prosecutions, in a theoretical and legal perspective.

I agree with Statmec that we are not in a position to determine whatsoever about the personal implication of this guard in the crimes that took place...This would be or better would have been the purpose of a trial.
I am not even sure i follow your reasoning here: to participate to a murder or / and abusing prisoners, who is guilty and who is not... Things are often more complex, too complex to be turned into some kind of theory. The sole concept of "abuse of prisoners" is too large...Some bastards could very well have kicked some asses from time to time, but would have rejected participating to mass killings - there are cases of Kapos taking risks saving lives - , while others could have been very nice to inmates while assuming their duty in a murderous operation.
Again, a guard who raped a female prisoner would be guilty of raping a prisoner, not necessarily of committing a crime against humanity. While some people guilty of crimes against humanity never abused or raped any inmates...No theoretical approach possible, really.

This is a paradox that can be found in the SonderKommado testimonies: Their relations with the SS guards affected to the SK are at prime sight not easy to grasp. I remember one of them (Wrobel?) who testified that he owed his life to one of the SS against the threat of one of the SK Kapo. In the end, this is not even an event affecting the culpability of the SS guards. I mean, however he behaved with the inmates, this SS guard working at the Krematoria were all guilty. He might have not been guilty of the same crimes than Moll, but both were guilty of the same murderous enterprise, (Moll was only guilty of additional crimes).

I admit that i don't have a definitive stance on how those former SS should be treated. I think for example that the nature of the camp should be taken into consideration. Being a cook at Terblinka II is not the same as being a cook at Auschwitz, as in the first camp the cook was basically cooking for the murderers and those who helped them...It kind of make a distinction...But just as i said, this is precisely what a trial should determine.
But then, this/these trials should have taken place decades ago.
And it seems that this will take place in 2017 or 2018! And this alone should raise some questions.
And my whole point is that those trial should have taken place decades ago or never as a rule (with the exception of some ground breaking evidence proving the culpability of one of the murderer)

As i explained above, i would like to know the motivation of the prosecution. Did it launch those new charges because of new ground breaking new evidence or because of this new standard of evidence gives it the opportunity to win a case that could not have been won a couple of years ago?
If the later is the case, then there is matters to worry.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:07 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Balsamo:

He knowingly and willingly contributed to these insidious and cruel acts," added the prosecutors.


This to me is the key, Balsamo. Not knowledge but participation.

Now, from my humble point of view, the madness is to be found in the conclusion of this article:
All these recent cases were tried using a new standard of evidence: that it was sufficient to work at a death camp to be prosecuted,[b] even without proof of a link to specific deaths


That’s an impossibility after all this time. But, if he volunteered to participate, knowing fully well what the end result would be, IMO this is grounds for prosecution. Whether or not this would lead to conviction is a different story altogether.

Until then, given the poor level of information we were given, i stand with both Jeff's: it is madness.


To me there are two different ways of looking at this:

1) Being at a location is not grounds for prosecuting someone. So, for example, let’s say I was assigned to the Death Camp Sobibor as a radio operator or a cook. Now, I did not volunteer, I was assigned to go there. I took no part in any actions, unless ordered to do so, I left the prisoners alone and did my job. Leaving my post is desertion and punishable by a death sentence, I made several requests (or even a single request) for a transfer (successful or not) and it was obvious that I was only there because I was assigned there.

To me this person is not culpable, he was assigned to be at this location. Now, the difference in this scenario is the commanders of these camps. They were in control and therefore came under the concept of Command Responsibility, they were the ones ultimately responsible for whatever happened in the camps.

2) However, being at a location and willingly participating is a different proposition altogether. Let’s go back to my radio operator or cook. Let’s say I actively participate in the abuse of prisoners, I volunteer for actions because I enjoy it or I look for ways to enrich myself at the prisoner’s expense. To me this person went beyond the ordinary duties of his job and is therefore culpable. In the above case, the guard allegedly volunteered to participate to guard condemned prisoners. By volunteering he showed a willingness to participate in an action that led to the deaths of thousands of people. We may never know if he actually killed anyone but he participated in the action.

So, I hope this makes it clear. I agree we need more information about this before forming a coherent opinion.

To be clear also, from the news reports, assuming they are right, the charge is accessory to murder, not abuse of prisoners; the brief notes we’ve seen from the prosecutor’s statement say that the man participated in Erntefest by being a member of a chain of guards as well as by doing tower duty and in this way “knowingly and willingly” contributed to the execution of the Jewish victims.

Whether this prosecution is based on the Demjanjuk standard or not, what we can read about it indicates that it differs to some of the other recent cases in that the man participated in the murder action, with knowledge he was doing so, whilst he did not serve directly in the SD execution Kommando.

That’s what I’ve seen of the charge. Much of what I am reading here seems like either irrelevant ex post facto reasoning to justify a hasty and biased conclusion or groundless speculation, some of the speculation based on faulty knowledge about Erntefest. My reason for disagreeing with the stampede to decry this prosecution as bad and nuts, which Jeff_36’s post tried putting in motion, stems from this. To call the charge madness based on what we’ve read, and what we know about the camp and the Erntefest action, is IMO an imaginative leap I’m not prepared to make.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balmoral95 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:54 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:Balsamo:

He knowingly and willingly contributed to these insidious and cruel acts," added the prosecutors.


This to me is the key, Balsamo. Not knowledge but participation.

Now, from my humble point of view, the madness is to be found in the conclusion of this article:
All these recent cases were tried using a new standard of evidence: that it was sufficient to work at a death camp to be prosecuted,[b] even without proof of a link to specific deaths


That’s an impossibility after all this time. But, if he volunteered to participate, knowing fully well what the end result would be, IMO this is grounds for prosecution. Whether or not this would lead to conviction is a different story altogether.

Until then, given the poor level of information we were given, i stand with both Jeff's: it is madness.


To me there are two different ways of looking at this:

1) Being at a location is not grounds for prosecuting someone. So, for example, let’s say I was assigned to the Death Camp Sobibor as a radio operator or a cook. Now, I did not volunteer, I was assigned to go there. I took no part in any actions, unless ordered to do so, I left the prisoners alone and did my job. Leaving my post is desertion and punishable by a death sentence, I made several requests (or even a single request) for a transfer (successful or not) and it was obvious that I was only there because I was assigned there.

To me this person is not culpable, he was assigned to be at this location. Now, the difference in this scenario is the commanders of these camps. They were in control and therefore came under the concept of Command Responsibility, they were the ones ultimately responsible for whatever happened in the camps.

2) However, being at a location and willingly participating is a different proposition altogether. Let’s go back to my radio operator or cook. Let’s say I actively participate in the abuse of prisoners, I volunteer for actions because I enjoy it or I look for ways to enrich myself at the prisoner’s expense. To me this person went beyond the ordinary duties of his job and is therefore culpable. In the above case, the guard allegedly volunteered to participate to guard condemned prisoners. By volunteering he showed a willingness to participate in an action that led to the deaths of thousands of people. We may never know if he actually killed anyone but he participated in the action.

So, I hope this makes it clear. I agree we need more information about this before forming a coherent opinion.

To be clear also, from the news reports, assuming they are right, the charge is accessory to murder, not abuse of prisoners; the brief notes we’ve seen from the prosecutor’s statement say that the man participated in Erntefest by being a member of a chain of guards as well as by doing tower duty and in this way “knowingly and willingly” contributed to the execution of the Jewish victims.

Whether this prosecution is based on the Demjanjuk standard or not, what we can read about it indicates that it differs to some of the other recent cases in that the man participated in the murder action, with knowledge he was doing so, whilst he did not serve directly in the SD execution Kommando.

That’s what I’ve seen of the charge. Much of what I am reading here seems like either irrelevant ex post facto reasoning to justify a hasty and biased conclusion or groundless speculation, some of the speculation based on faulty knowledge about Erntefest. My reason for disagreeing with the stampede to decry this prosecution as bad and nuts, which Jeff_36’s post tried putting in motion, stems from this. To call the charge madness based on what we’ve read, and what we know about the camp and the Erntefest action, is IMO an imaginative leap I’m not prepared to make.


Agreed. Be nice to read the actual indictment.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:55 pm

Balsamo wrote:I am not even sure i follow your reasoning here: to participate to a murder or / and abusing prisoners, who is guilty and who is not... Things are often more complex, too complex to be turned into some kind of theory.


I look at it as a starting point, in how I judge each individual case. Everyone who served at these camps saw and experienced things differently. Even those that didn’t participate voluntarily did participate. I want to know their motivation and how the evidence points to this.
There is a difference between choice and coercion and what choice and coercion look like.

The sole concept of "abuse of prisoners" is too large...


You are taking this too literally. It’s not the “sole concept,” Balsamo. The “why” is just as important as the action. We have numerous incidents of Kapos abusing prisoners but doing this to ameliorate the punishment. Better to have someone go through the motions of abuse than to have someone do it who enjoys it. Even the victims of the abuse saw the difference.

I get the fact this is complex and that there were very few absolutes of anyone who served time or did time in these camps. The doctors at Auschwitz participated in selections at the ramp. There were doctors who eagerly awaited arrivals and did the selections, there were doctors who did it because it was their duty and there were doctors who tried to avoid it as much as possible. Did all of them do it? Yes. Were the motives different? Absolutely.

Some bastards could very well have kicked some asses from time to time, but would have rejected participating to mass killings - there are cases of Kapos taking risks saving lives - , while others could have been very nice to inmates while assuming their duty in a murderous operation.


Yes, as I’ve tried to explain. All of these have to be taken into account.


While some people guilty of crimes against humanity never abused or raped any inmates...No theoretical approach possible, really.


Balsamo, we all process this history differently. I’m quite aware that many those who gassed, starved or shot Jews (and others) during the war may never have committed rape or beat anyone. That’s not the point. What I want to know is why someone did something and what the evidence points to.

In this particular case, I want to know why the defendant was present on the day in question. Did he volunteer? Was he ordered to do it? What does the evidence tell us about this man?
We may never know all the answers but we can start with the above questions.

I admit that i don't have a definitive stance on how those former SS should be treated.


I don’t, either. That’s why I have to look at each individual case.

I think for example that the nature of the camp should be taken into consideration. Being a cook at Terblinka II is not the same as being a cook at Auschwitz, as in the first camp the cook was basically cooking for the murderers and those who helped them...


This is where I disagree with you. A cook is a cook, regardless of the camp. What I want to know is what this person did and as much as possible determine why he did it.

But then, this/these trials should have taken place decades ago.


I agree with you on this point.


As i explained above, i would like to know the motivation of the prosecution. Did it launch those new charges because of new ground breaking new evidence or because of this new standard of evidence gives it the opportunity to win a case that could not have been won a couple of years ago?
If the later is the case, then there is matters to worry.


Fair point.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:05 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
But then, this/these trials should have taken place decades ago.


I agree with you on this point.

This point makes no sense to me: because German justice was flawed for decades, no steps should be taken now to correct the problem?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:09 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
But then, this/these trials should have taken place decades ago.


I agree with you on this point.

This point makes no sense to me: because German justice was flawed for decades, no steps should be taken now to correct the problem?



No, I agree these trials should have taken place decades ago.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:24 pm

Sure. But they didn't. This was an argument against trying this defendant earlier in the thread. IMO that German justice failed earlier is no argument against prosecutions now.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:37 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Sure. But they didn't. This was an argument against trying this defendant earlier in the thread. IMO that German justice failed earlier is no argument against prosecutions now.



If this guy was on the radar 20-30 years ago then they should have tried him then. This is the thing that irks me, politics interfering with justice, though of course this happens. This is where I say I agree with the point this trial should’ve taken place decades ago.

But, if he just popped up on their radar a few years ago and they’ve now gathered enough evidence to try him, well, that’s a completely different scenario.

One of the things that you posted up thread stated that the prosecutor’s office looked at 200 cases but only chose to try three of them. That helped shed a lot of light on the subject, that’s not a fishing expedition, that’s a prosecutor’s office doing their job.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:41 pm

Balmoral95 wrote:Agreed. Be nice to read the actual indictment.

I did search for more but came up empty handed. Too little known for me to jump on this bandwagon.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:52 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Sure. But they didn't. This was an argument against trying this defendant earlier in the thread. IMO that German justice failed earlier is no argument against prosecutions now.

If this guy was on the radar 20-30 years ago then they should have tried him then.

Why didn't "they"?

Jeffk 1970 wrote:This is where I say I agree with the point this trial should’ve taken place decades ago.

Of course. But, again, it didn't. Saying that the authorities should have brought charges against him decades ago or that the laws should have been different or interpreted differently or whatever doesn't answer questions about what to do now. Not for me, I just don't know enough about the specifics of this. I was aware that authorities were continuing to investigate Majdanek guards, but that's not a lot to go on.

One could have agreed, by analogy, that the prosecutions brought in Germany in the '60s should have taken place in the late '40s - and sticking with Majdanek we know that the third Majdanek trial was held starting only in 1975 (about 25-30 years after the trial should have taken place - and there was even a prosecution of a Majdanek perpetrator that took place in 1989). What's the cutoff? Germany eliminated the statute of limitations for murder in 1979 for a reason.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:One of the things that you posted up thread stated that the prosecutor’s office looked at 200 cases but only chose to try three of them. That helped shed a lot of light on the subject, that’s not a fishing expedition, that’s a prosecutor’s office doing their job.

Right, so you're now saying that this isn't "madness" on its face?

Those cases were Auschwitz IIRC. There were 20 Majdanek guards and I took that war crimes investigators were evaluating the strength of the evidence against individuals among them, without expectation that many charges would be brought.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:17 am

Under the "should have" standard, Karl-Friedrich Höcker (of Höcker Album fame) should have been prosecuted in 1965 or 1947, but not in 1989. Full story from JTA:
May 10, 1989

BONN (May. 9)

A former SS officer has been sentenced to four years in prison for complicity in the murder of at least 60 Jews in the Majdanek death camp near Lublin, Poland.

He may also have been involved in the killing of 380 other inmates.

But the Bielefeld court that passed sentence last week decided that 77-year-old Karl-Friedrich Hoecker would be allowed to stay at home, pending a possible appeal.

The court was sure the prisoner would not try to escape, because he has strong personal ties in town and is undergoing medical treatment.

After nine months of deliberation, a panel of judges found May 3 that Hoecker was an “armchair culprit” whose job was to order the deadly Zyklon B gas used in the Majdanek gas chambers, where some 250,000 Jews perished.

Hoecker served at the camp in 1943. Witnesses at the trial described him as a cruel man who gladly resorted to sadistic practices in dealing with Jewish inmates.

But he told the court last month that he did not kill or hurt a single inmate during his service in Majdanek.

In 1965, Hoecker drew a seven-year sentence for his role in the killings of at least 3,000 inmates, mostly Jews, in Auschwitz. He was released in 1970, after serving five years.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balsamo » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:23 am

A couple of posts appeared while i was writing mine so, let's start with them.
@Jeffk:
I understand your perspective, but again, to explore it we need the Trial first. It is a too big anticipation to try analyzing the effective role/motivations/actions of the suspect before the trial.
Otherwise, it is a very interesting subject.
I realize we might have misunderstood each other. But in this case, the suspect has not been tried yet, so anything related to his potential motivations - whether coerced or by choice - is quite premature as seems the others questions you are asking yourself. Again interesting topic, of course, but as pointed out by Balmoral, let at least read the indictment in full first.
This is where I disagree with you. A cook is a cook, regardless of the camp. What I want to know is what this person did and as much as possible determine why he did it.

Yes, well this is more related to human psychology than Justice or History... :lol: you know the Milgram thing... But then again, we would need to learn more about the facts to really talk about it.

@Statmec:
This point makes no sense to me: because German justice was flawed for decades, no steps should be taken now to correct the problem?

Of course, it makes a point.
Should the German Justice makes its redemption at the expense of "suspect"? Does it have to sentence people without the obligation to actually proof the link between the suspect and the crime just because it {!#%@} up a long time ago? Meanwhile they had the time to correct things while everyone was still alive.
If it means to be a lesson of Justice, it would have been better that the German Justice would have made its redemption at its own expense, presenting its excuses and correcting ITS mistakes instead of creating quite scary jurisprudence at the expense of the future generation.
Again, i agree that we'll have to wait for the full indictment and the trial if it actually take place.


Sure. But they didn't. This was an argument against trying this defendant earlier in the thread. IMO that German justice failed earlier is no argument against prosecutions now.


Indeed, i have read your link. 200 surviving guards that have served at Majdanek had been identified.
Now that is THE issue. Why weren't they prosecuted - let's say between the early 80's and 20 years ago?
The same way i can reverse your argument: " That German Justice failed earlier is no argument for prosecution today." As i said, if the German Justice was in a position to actually prosecute this guard, then it is IT that it is guilty in the first place, and should be investigated. BUT, if it did not prosecute him because the Law as well as the jurisprudence, and all the European norms would not have allowed a condemnation, then to prosecute now, means that changes have been brought to the judicial system, changes that would have reduced the "burden of proof"...Which in turn, as Justice is meant to be equal for all, is a threat to our liberty and to the guarantee of a fair and just justice for all.

Again, my reaction is not definitive.

Here starts my original post, (Edit)
Statmec:

the brief notes we’ve seen from the prosecutor’s statement say that the man participated in Erntefest by being a member of a chain of guards as well as by doing tower duty and in this way “knowingly and willingly” contributed to the execution of the Jewish victims.


Well, stampede or not, we can only comment what we have.
How is it even possible to think that someone put at Tower duty is "knowingly and willingly" contributing to what is happening downstairs?
Read again the charge, forgetting it is about Majdanek and Erntefest, and imagine what it could mean for the future. How to project such allegation to other less awful cases?
Imagine how a case like Abu Graib could be treated following this new logic, and the list of potential indictments that could be listed.

Even if we all refrain from any speculation - which basically means that we should also stop to comment any press release as they do not tell the whole story - the question of why this specific case was not judged worth prosecuting before is still valid.
How is it even possible to think that someone put at Tower duty is "knowingly and willingly" contributing to what is happening downstairs?

Whether this prosecution is based on the Demjanjuk standard or not


Why "whether"? This is the whole point!
How is it even possible to think that someone put at Tower duty is "knowingly and willingly" contributing to what is happening downstairs?
Why did the prosecution felt there was case before?
If they could have, why didn't it prosecute the man during the last 70 years?
If they felt they could not have, then why the changes?

there is room for a discussion without having speculate about the depth of the charge.

It is the Prosecution that chose to share this indictment with the public through the media. What the prosecution actually said to the media prompted the reaction, and there is no "imagination" involved in considering that given the little the prosecution said, the whole charge seems like a psychopathic behavior by the Justice, in regards with the norms usually used in Western Europe in judicial procedures.
Given the gravity of the charge, the age of the "suspect" who should be presumed innocent - a kind of standard - would have deserved a more detailed explanation of this late indictment.
What is the charge, basically?
To have been a guard at Majdanek?
Because, as far as i am concerned, the rest of the charge should be proven effectively, but if there is no longer the legal need to actually prove the direct link between the suspect and the crime committed, then, in any "normal case" the sentence would/should be dismissed by the ECJ.

Now, as i wrote before, i agree with you - and i think everyone does - that the final judgment should wait for the trial to take place.
It is possible that the prosecution HAS some ground breaking evidence that the suspect is guilty of crimes against Humanity, but it did not help by saying it was on guard duty.
As a reminder, only crimes against humanity are not under the prescription rule, so basically this is the charge.
So that is basically what's at stake, and i really hope that the prosecution does have some great evidence that would link the suspect to the crime against humanity that have been committed.

The so called "War against Terror" has already done some big damage to the way one renders Justice, if one adds this kind of cases, what will be left to our "post war European democratic Justice"?

Is it stampede reaction to outline the discrepancy between gravity of the crimes involved and the consistence of the charge?
Does anyone realize that there are no real jurisprudence for this kind of action?

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balmoral95 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:29 am

Um, how about we don't comment because none of has shite.... yet.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:51 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:One could have agreed, by analogy, that the prosecutions brought in Germany in the '60s should have taken place in the late '40s - and sticking with Majdanek we know that the third Majdanek trial was held starting only in 1975 (about 25-30 years after the trial should have taken place - and there was even a prosecution of a Majdanek perpetrator that took place in 1989). What's the cutoff? Germany eliminated the statute of limitations for murder in 1979 for a reason.


There is a difference between lacking evidence or only finding evidence years after what happened and not prosecuting people due to apathy or indifference. So, in the case of this particular person, we don’t know enough yet to make a determination on what happened. Did the prosecutor’s office have enough information to start proceedings against him years ago but chose not to for some other reason besides lack of evidence? No one knows yet.

One of the things that you posted up thread stated that the prosecutor’s office looked at 200 cases but only chose to try three of them. That helped shed a lot of light on the subject, that’s not a fishing expedition, that’s a prosecutor’s office doing their job.
Right, so you're now saying that this isn't "madness" on its face?


Again, where did I say this was madness? Did I specifically say this was madness?

I believe I clarified what I meant by this:

From Jeff’s story:

as Germany races against time to bring elderly suspects from the Hitler era to trial before they die.


It’s this “race” that I find so ridiculous, it’s what causes the rush to indict radio operators and guards.

I’ve then tried (and apparently failed) to clarify what I meant.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:53 am

Balmoral95 wrote:Um, how about we don't comment because none of has shite.... yet.


Yup.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
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 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:00 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:One could have agreed, by analogy, that the prosecutions brought in Germany in the '60s should have taken place in the late '40s - and sticking with Majdanek we know that the third Majdanek trial was held starting only in 1975 (about 25-30 years after the trial should have taken place - and there was even a prosecution of a Majdanek perpetrator that took place in 1989). What's the cutoff? Germany eliminated the statute of limitations for murder in 1979 for a reason.


There is a difference between lacking evidence or only finding evidence years after what happened and not prosecuting people due to apathy or indifference. So, in the case of this particular person, we don’t know enough yet to make a determination on what happened. Did the prosecutor’s office have enough information to start proceedings against him years ago but chose not to for some other reason besides lack of evidence? No one knows yet.

Which was my point at the outset! Way too little to have us on a bandwagon trashing this particular prosecution . . . and yet . . .

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
One of the things that you posted up thread stated that the prosecutor’s office looked at 200 cases but only chose to try three of them. That helped shed a lot of light on the subject, that’s not a fishing expedition, that’s a prosecutor’s office doing their job.
Right, so you're now saying that this isn't "madness" on its face?


Again, where did I say this was madness? Did I specifically say this was madness?

Again . . . Jeff_36 posted

You thanked him and in a reply to me wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:It’s why I agree with Jeff_36, it needs to just stop.

I read that as you agreeing with Jeff_36, as you wrote, that "it" (the madness) needs to just stop. I dunno.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I believe I clarified what I meant by this:

From Jeff’s story:

as Germany races against time to bring elderly suspects from the Hitler era to trial before they die.

It’s this “race” that I find so ridiculous, it’s what causes the rush to indict radio operators and guards.

I’ve then tried (and apparently failed) to clarify what I meant.

True, I don't get it. Camp SS were not merely "radio operators" or "guards" or "cooks" or whatever. And from the little we know of this individual, he is not charged with doing run-of-the-mill guard duties or deciphering radio messages or the like.

I have to say that I am baffled by this discussion. The man is being charged as an accessory to murder, based on as yet undisclosed evidence, in an indictment we have as yet to read: this is serious stuff and yet it is the prosecution that's deemed mad, ridiculous, and so on - without information about the core of the case. And again, based on faulty premises about Erntefest.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:07 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:One could have agreed, by analogy, that the prosecutions brought in Germany in the '60s should have taken place in the late '40s - and sticking with Majdanek we know that the third Majdanek trial was held starting only in 1975 (about 25-30 years after the trial should have taken place - and there was even a prosecution of a Majdanek perpetrator that took place in 1989). What's the cutoff? Germany eliminated the statute of limitations for murder in 1979 for a reason.


There is a difference between lacking evidence or only finding evidence years after what happened and not prosecuting people due to apathy or indifference. So, in the case of this particular person, we don’t know enough yet to make a determination on what happened. Did the prosecutor’s office have enough information to start proceedings against him years ago but chose not to for some other reason besides lack of evidence? No one knows yet.

Which was my point at the outset! Way too little to have us on a bandwagon trashing this particular prosecution . . . and yet . . .

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
One of the things that you posted up thread stated that the prosecutor’s office looked at 200 cases but only chose to try three of them. That helped shed a lot of light on the subject, that’s not a fishing expedition, that’s a prosecutor’s office doing their job.
Right, so you're now saying that this isn't "madness" on its face?


Again, where did I say this was madness? Did I specifically say this was madness?

Again . . . Jeff_36 posted

You thanked him and in a reply to me wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:It’s why I agree with Jeff_36, it needs to just stop.

I read that as you agreeing with Jeff_36, as you wrote, that "it" (the madness) needs to just stop. I dunno.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I believe I clarified what I meant by this:

From Jeff’s story:

as Germany races against time to bring elderly suspects from the Hitler era to trial before they die.

It’s this “race” that I find so ridiculous, it’s what causes the rush to indict radio operators and guards.

I’ve then tried (and apparently failed) to clarify what I meant.

True, I don't get it. Camp SS were not merely "radio operators" or "guards" or "cooks" or whatever. And from the little we know of this individual, he is not charged with doing run-of-the-mill guard duties or deciphering radio messages or the like.

I have to say that I am baffled by this discussion. The man is being charged as an accessory to murder, based on as yet undisclosed evidence, in an indictment we have as yet to read: this is serious stuff and yet it is the prosecution that's deemed mad, ridiculous, and so on - without information about the core of the case. And again, based on faulty premises about Erntefest.



I’ve sorta lost the point of this whole thing. I’m done with it for now.

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Oskar Gröning Auschwitz trial

Postby Balmoral95 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:14 am



Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests