John Demjanjuk, alleged Nazi death camp guard, goes on trial in Germany

[kancer kid]

Christian Science Monitor - John Demjanjuk, alleged Nazi death camp guard, goes on trial in Germany

Berlin - The trial of former Nazi guard John Demjanjuk for the murder of 27,900 Jews began in Munich Monday in what is likely to be one of the last major trials of alleged Nazi war criminals and one of the final chances for Holocaust survivors to seek justice.



Mr. Demjanjuk, a former Soviet Red Army soldier who after being captured by the Nazis allegedly volunteered for the SS, is accused of forcing Jews into gas chambers at the Sobibor concentration camp in Poland. He has denied involvement in the Holocaust.



Demjanjuk's attorney Ulrich Busch opened the case today by filing a motion accusing the court and prosecutors of treating the Ukrainian-born Demjanjuk more harshly than German-born prison guards, some of whom were acquitted.

Is all of this prosecution of former Nazi officers/soldiers still necessary?
Has a Japanese soldier ever been prosecuted for the crimes they committed?
How about a US soldier?
This seems really redundant now at this stage of the game. Does this even benefit anyone?

[Night]

Perhaps as a message to those in countries in the future where genocide will take place, as a message that even 60 years later they will still be tried if they commit crimes.

[kancer kid]

Perhaps as a message to those in countries in the future where genocide will take place, as a message that even 60 years later they will still be tried if they commit crimes.

Although it would seem that the Allies, especially the United States committed far fewer atrocites than the Germans, if we are going to subject the Germans to trials I do not get why the soldiers on the Allied side should not be submitted to trials also.

Richard Drayton: An ethical blank cheque | Comment is free | The Guardian

In 1945, as at the end of all wars, the victor powers spun the conflict's history to serve the interests of their elites. Wartime propaganda thus achieved an extraordinary afterlife. As Vladimir Putin showed yesterday, the Great Patriotic War remains a key political resource in Russia. In Britain and the US, too, a certain idea of the second world war is enthusiastically kept alive and less flattering memories suppressed.

Five years ago, Robert Lilly, a distinguished American sociologist, prepared a book based on military archives. Taken by Force is a study of the rapes committed by American soldiers in Europe between 1942 and 1945. He submitted his manuscript in 2001. But after September 11, its US publisher suppressed it, and it first appeared in 2003 in a French translation.

We know from Anthony Beevor about the sexual violence unleashed by the Red Army, but we prefer not to know about mass rape committed by American and British troops. Lilly suggests a minimum of 10,000 American rapes. Contemporaries described a much wider scale of unpunished sex crime. Time Magazine reported in September 1945: "Our own army and the British army along with ours have done their share of looting and raping ... we too are considered an army of rapists."

[grandpa]

Although it would seem that the Allies, especially the United
States committed far fewer atrocites than the Germans, if we
are going to subject the Germans to trials I do
not get why the soldiers on the Allied side should
not be submitted to trials also.

Because America is considered untouchable -- sort of like the Mafia. It can impose standards on others, but never is it supposed to be impeded itself. And that's called justice. It's a standard white nationalists --like the Nazis -- would apply to themselves.

Grandpa h.

[kancer kid]

Because America is considered untouchable -- sort of like the Mafia. It can impose standards on others, but never is it supposed to be impeded itself. And that's called justice. It's a standard white nationalists --like the Nazis -- would apply to themselves.

Grandpa h.

Yes I know but not even the damn reds were prosecuted for anything they did.

ANd come on, how old is the guy? 90? Is he anywhere near a threat to society anymore?

[GeminiBrian]

ANd come on, how old is the guy? 90? Is he anywhere near a threat to society anymore?

Irrelevant objection.

If the surviving relatives of any of the men women and children murdered at the nazi death camp are able to derive just one crumb of comfort from seeing this monster punished, albeit belatedly, who has the right to deny them that small victory?

Besides, the living have no right to forgive on behalf of the dead.

[RickSp]

Besser spät als nie.

Better late than never.

There should be no statute of limitations on war crimes.

[kancer kid]

Irrelevant objection.

If the surviving relatives of any of the men women and children murdered at the nazi death camp are able to derive just one crumb of comfort from seeing this monster punished, albeit belatedly, who has the right to deny them that small victory?

Besides, the living have no right to forgive on behalf of the dead.

Isn't the system suppose to deal out justice, not revenge? I don't see the real JUSTICE in putting a 90 year old guy on trial. My step-grandfather, whose is a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge, is old, and he was pretty young when he signed up. I don't know how you can hold someone accountable for something he did back then.

How about all the stuff he has since done? (I don't know if it is good or bad);

[GeminiBrian]

Isn't the system suppose to deal out justice, not revenge? I don't see the real JUSTICE in putting a 90 year old guy on trial. My step-grandfather, whose is a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge, is old, and he was pretty young when he signed up. I don't know how you can hold someone accountable for something he did back then.

How about all the stuff he has since done? (I don't know if it is good or bad);

If he is indeed guilty, as it appears he undoubtedly is - I would simply say that some crimes against humanity are of such monumental enormity that you cannot deal with them satisfactorily using regular law.

The holocaust, (and all who perpetrated it), stands out as one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever perpetrated in the entire history of the human race, and we owe it to the victims to persecute every last person who collaborated in it. Call it revenge if you like. but I, for one, can live with that when it comes to this level of brutality.

Anything less sends out entirely the wrong signal to mankind. And that, too, would be a cowardly betrayal of the murdered millions. Prosecuting this man is an entirely neccessary symbolic act.

[RickSp]

Isn't the system suppose to deal out justice, not revenge? I don't see the real JUSTICE in putting a 90 year old guy on trial. My step-grandfather, whose is a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge, is old, and he was pretty young when he signed up. I don't know how you can hold someone accountable for something he did back then.

How about all the stuff he has since done? (I don't know if it is good or bad);

Are you equating your step-grandfather with a Nazi death camp guard? I won't recommend bringing up that point at your next family get-together.

[kancer kid]

If he is indeed guilty, as it appears he undoubtedly is - I would simply say that some crimes against humanity are of such monumental enormity that you cannot deal with them satisfactorily using regular law.

The holocaust, (and all who perpetrated it), stands out as one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever perpetrated in the entire history of the human race, and we owe it to the victims to persecute every last person who collaborated in it. Call it revenge if you like. but I, for one, can live with that when it comes to this level of brutality.

Anything less sends out entirely the wrong signal to mankind. And that, too, would be a cowardly betrayal of the murdered millions. Prosecuting this man is an entirely neccessary symbolic act.

My response in distinguishing justice and revenge had to do with this quote from the person above me:
"If the surviving relatives of any of the men women and children murdered at the nazi death camp are able to derive just one crumb of comfort from seeing this monster punished, albeit belatedly, who has the right to deny them that small victory?"

Their reason for putting this man on trial is merely for revenge, which is not what a court of law should up hold.

I can pretty much agree though that there should be no statute of limitations on war crimes but are we still going to be having these trials in a decade from now when these guys are 100+?

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE=kancer kid;672305
I can pretty much agree though that there should be no statute of limitations on war crimes but are we still going to be having these trials in a decade from now when these guys are 100+?[/QUOTE]

If needs be, yes...

Age doesn't automatically cancel out the enormity of some crimes.

And we owe it to the millions of innocent victims to do everything in our power to show our disapproval of such unimaginable crimes.