Should Old Nazis be brought to Justice?

[Wizard]

@heimwehr_danzig

Hi Wizard,
Although I can see good arguments for having no statute of limitations on war crimes, I would summarise my personal view as below;
I think that you cannot have a limit on prosecuting a Hitler or Milosevic, but for a mid ranking officer (i.e. a KZ Commandant) I would think that after 10 years witness testimony would become so vague as to render a conviction potentially unsafe as events fade, appearances change etc. This is of course barring a very good paper trail, which would be easier in a modern scenario with electronic communications etc. For a junior soldier (i.e. Einsatzgruppen Trooper) I would think that unless there is a pressing reason to prosecute immediately upon cessation of hostilities (and by a neutral power) then I would not pursue charges.
This is only my personal opinion of course, but as I said I find the sight of agend former Nazis and foreign auxilliaries being brought to trial based on 60+ year old evidence distasteful.
I hope I have answered your question.

Well, you’ve expressed your personal opinion, but I find your reasoning unconvincing. It’s a given that trials held long after the events in question are difficult to prosecute because of problems with witnesses, evidentiary issues, and even questions of identity, but this often works for, as well as, against the accused. I feel that as long as proper rules of evidence and the burden of proof are scrupulously observed, there should be no bar to prosecution because time has passed.

As for personally finding prosecution of aging war criminals distasteful, I agree, but my personal opinion is that it is far less “distasteful” to prosecute a suspected war criminal than to let the crimes go unpunished simply because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice for a long time.

[heimwehr_danzig]

Hello again,
I doubt that we shall convert one another on this point, but although I agree that matters of dispute may aid the accused, as indeed John Demanjuk was aided in Israel by doubts about his identity, the amount of stress placed upon these aged individuals and their families (who are innocent even if the accused is guilty) is out of proportion to the ‘value’ of these individuals to the crime as committed. They were not death camp commandants or einsatzgruppen leaders, but minor guards or low ranking foot soldiers. I think that those men still wanted for Nazi ear crimes are those whose part in the events was often so inconsequential that it is no longer just to put a vulnerable individual through such an ordeal. I think it risks becoming more about vengence than justice. Indeed (and please do correct me if I am wrong) did not Simon Wiesenthal himself say that all those men he wished to bring to justice were now behind bars or dead?
Kind regards,

[Wizard]

@heimwehr_danzig

Hello again,
I doubt that we shall convert one another on this point, but although I agree that matters of dispute may aid the accused, as indeed John Demanjuk was aided in Israel by doubts about his identity, the amount of stress placed upon these aged individuals and their families (who are innocent even if the accused is guilty) is out of proportion to the ‘value’ of these individuals to the crime as committed. They were not death camp commandants or einsatzgruppen leaders, but minor guards or low ranking foot soldiers. I think that those men still wanted for Nazi ear crimes are those whose part in the events was often so inconsequential that it is no longer just to put a vulnerable individual through such an ordeal. I think it risks becoming more about vengence than justice. Indeed (and please do correct me if I am wrong) did not Simon Wiesenthal himself say that all those men he wished to bring to justice were now behind bars or dead?
Kind regards,

Yes, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I see no point in discriminating amongst war criminals on the basis of their rank or position at the time; murder is murder regardless of whether it is perpetrated by a corporal or ordered by a general who does not wish to get his hands dirty.

You have a valid point about putting stress on the families of suspected war criminals, but the perpetrator brings that on himself; it should be a consideration before the crime is committed. And justice is too important an issue to be ignored; state-administered justice is vital if we wish to avoid the barbarity of blood feuds and personal vendettas. Justice is a duty every state owes it’s citizens.

[Iron_Yeoman]

@Wizard

Yes, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I see no point in discriminating amongst war criminals on the basis of their rank or position at the time; murder is murder regardless of whether it is perpetrated by a corporal or ordered by a general who does not wish to get his hands dirty.

You have a valid point about putting stress on the families of suspected war criminals, but the perpetrator brings that on himself; it should be a consideration before the crime is committed. And justice is too important an issue to be ignored; state-administered justice is vital if we wish to avoid the barbarity of blood feuds and personal vendettas. Justice is a duty every state owes it’s citizens.

Whole heartedly agree, as for the rank thing it has long been the legal position that ‘I was only following orders…’ is no excuse for committing war crimes.

Heimwehr danzig raises an interesting point about the passage of time affecting people’s recollection of events. I would say evidence must be concrete, simply saying someone committed war crimes is not enough, you need solid proof.

That said old nazis should be and must be brought to justice. Just because it happened 60 odd years ago doesn’t mean we should all forgive and forget. Personally, i’d string the old buggers up, but that’s me.

[Wizard]

@Iron_Yeoman

…Heimwehr danzig raises an interesting point about the passage of time affecting people’s recollection of events. I would say evidence must be concrete, simply saying someone committed war crimes is not enough, you need solid proof…

The whole rationale for a statute of limitations is that the passage of time makes it difficult to both prosecute and defend criminal cases. At some point, it becomes more trouble than it is considered worth to try old cases of a minor nature. But in heinous crimes such as murder, torture, maiming, etc. the interest in seeing justice done outweighs the trouble necessary to prosecute and defend old crimes; that is why there is no statute of limitations on murder.

War crimes, by their very nature, where the victims are usually completely helpless, most often fall into the heinous category. Moreover, because war crimes typically can’t be resolved immediately, they frequently are not prosecuted until years later. To burden the prosecution with a finite time limit would mean that many war crimes could not be prosecuted at all.

[Nickdfresh]

As far as the issue of prosecuting/not prosecuting lower ranking war criminals: what would be the dincentive of following illegal orders if one could hide long enough from it after the fact?

[Uyraell]

@Nickdfresh

As far as the issue of prosecuting/not prosecuting lower ranking war criminals: what would be the dincentive of following illegal orders if one could hide long enough from it after the fact?

But Nick, you ask a non-sequitor:
At the time the order was given, it was a valid order within the command structure in which it was issued.
Your question implicitly carries the assumption of retrograde illegality, cf Nuremberg Trials.

At the time the order is given, there is indeed no disincentive to follow it, beyond the innate humanity or inhumanity of the person receiving said order.
The corollary, however, is that there is a huge incentive to obey the order (however illegal it may later be determined to have been) in as much as: the person receiving the order will obey it in attempting to preserve themself from either prison sentence in a military prison, sentence to service in a Penal Unit, or Execution by Firing Squad.

The introduction of retroactive illegality at the Nuremberg trials tends in and of itself to cloud our thinking in these modern times.

While I agree some form of Justice-after-the-fact must be rendered, the entire issue of retroactive illegality is one that, imo, tends by its’ very nature to detract from, rather than enhance Justice.

Those who committed warcrimes at the time should face Justice: in that much I agree. However: Justice should be rendered according to the laws of the neutral and international non-victor nations that existed at the time, and not by the legal legerdemain of retroactive illegality, which again, in and of itself tends to make those enforcing victor’s justice near as bad as those they seek to prosecute, and certainly far far more selective in application of penalty than those they seek to prosecute.

… this also answers the point RS* raises when he states that Allied soldiers guilty of warcrimes should also, in all fairness and justice, be prosecuted.

Unfortunately, what it does not address, is the creation of a huge disincentive for any citizen of an Allied nation to then serve said nation in a military capacity in a time of conflict. I.E: Why be a soldier when being so can result in your imprisonment for obeying orders given by a superior who can and will have you imprisoned or executed for disobedience?
Is not this the root of the many, many hours recruits in the US and UK Forces spend in classes/lectures upon Military Law and Military Justice, and the UCMJ?

Kind and Respectful Regards Nick, Uyraell.

[royal744]

There have been many accounts after the fact that if a soldier failed to kill defenseless soldiers or civilians, “they would have killed me.” Maybe. I have also read of German Wehrmacht soldiers refusing to participate in such killings and permitted to not do so. One assumes that these were not SS who apparently had no such scruples. It is an undeniable fact that many tens of thousands of ex-SS who survived the war and raised children in its aftermath, lived to a ripe old age. Many apparently spent a lifetime lying about “what I did during the war” to outsiders, but many also apparently had to face the horrified awareness of their children of what the father had done. The book, “Born Guilty” supplies some interesting descriptions of what the childrens’ reactions were. My personal belief is that the children are entirely innocent, but the parents definitely not. In addition to the approbium of the children, many must surely have eventually felt a terrible shame at having been so stupid and so gulled by Hitler. Of course, many thousands probably protested their innocence until the last breath. The parents managed to murder a lot of innocents - the figures are inexact but surely upwards of over 30 million. If I had the power, I would send all of the guilty to prison. I don’t care how old they are.

[Wizard]

@Uyraell

But Nick, you ask a non-sequitor:
At the time the order was given, it was a valid order within the command structure in which it was issued.
Your question implicitly carries the assumption of retrograde illegality, cf Nuremberg Trials.

At the time the order is given, there is indeed no disincentive to follow it, beyond the innate humanity or inhumanity of the person receiving said order.
The corollary, however, is that there is a huge incentive to obey the order (however illegal it may later be determined to have been) in as much as: the person receiving the order will obey it in attempting to preserve themself from either prison sentence in a military prison, sentence to service in a Penal Unit, or Execution by Firing Squad.

The introduction of retroactive illegality at the Nuremberg trials tends in and of itself to cloud our thinking in these modern times.

While I agree some form of Justice-after-the-fact must be rendered, the entire issue of retroactive illegality is one that, imo, tends by its’ very nature to detract from, rather than enhance Justice.

Those who committed warcrimes at the time should face Justice: in that much I agree. However: Justice should be rendered according to the laws of the neutral and international non-victor nations that existed at the time, and not by the legal legerdemain of retroactive illegality, which again, in and of itself tends to make those enforcing victor’s justice near as bad as those they seek to prosecute, and certainly far far more selective in application of penalty than those they seek to prosecute.

… this also answers the point RS* raises when he states that Allied soldiers guilty of warcrimes should also, in all fairness and justice, be prosecuted.

Unfortunately, what it does not address, is the creation of a huge disincentive for any citizen of an Allied nation to then serve said nation in a military capacity in a time of conflict. I.E: Why be a soldier when being so can result in your imprisonment for obeying orders given by a superior who can and will have you imprisoned or executed for disobedience?
Is not this the root of the many, many hours recruits in the US and UK Forces spend in classes/lectures upon Military Law and Military Justice, and the UCMJ?

Kind and Respectful Regards Nick, Uyraell.

It’s a false assumption that all orders are legal and legitimate simply because they are given in accordance with an existing legitimate command structure.

The underlying basis for rejecting the defense of “I was just following orders” is that orders which direct someone to engage in activities prohibited by the customs and conventions or war, or by duly enacted treaties which prohibit certain actions, are in themselves illegal. It is the duty of every military man to know the appropriate conventions of war and to judge for himself whether the orders of his superiors contravene those conventions. Otherwise he might easily find himself charged with war crimes and with no legitimate defense.

Nuremberg was not an example of “retroactive illegality” in that Germany had agreed to abide by certain conventions and treaties and with which her leaders subsequently failed to comply. An example would be the Kellogg-Briand Pact which outlawed aggressive war. That was subsequently one of the charges against the senior Nazi Party members at Nuremberg.

[Nickdfresh]

@Uyraell

But Nick, you ask a non-sequitor:

I think you can disagree, but fail to see my question as a non sequitur…

At the time the order was given, it was a valid order within the command structure in which it was issued.
Your question implicitly carries the assumption of retrograde illegality, cf Nuremberg Trials.

Orders which contravene the rules of war are not in any way valid as was carefully explained to me as a soldier, especially ones which contravene various international conventions that one’s country is a signatory too…

At the time the order is given, there is indeed no disincentive to follow it, beyond the innate humanity or inhumanity of the person receiving said order.
The corollary, however, is that there is a huge incentive to obey the order (however illegal it may later be determined to have been) in as much as: the person receiving the order will obey it in attempting to preserve themself from either prison sentence in a military prison, sentence to service in a Penal Unit, or Execution by Firing Squad.

So, they have the mindset of criminals that think they will never be caught and act with impunity of “just following orders”?

The introduction of retroactive illegality at the Nuremberg trials tends in and of itself to cloud our thinking in these modern times.

As pointed out here, the Nuremberg Trials were indeed not just cases of “retroactive illegality” as the Nazi Party not only violated international law, but simply ignored German criminal code in their murder of say, Jewish civilians…

While I agree some form of Justice-after-the-fact must be rendered, the entire issue of retroactive illegality is one that, imo, tends by its’ very nature to detract from, rather than enhance Justice.

Those who committed warcrimes at the time should face Justice: in that much I agree. However: Justice should be rendered according to the laws of the neutral and international non-victor nations that existed at the time, and not by the legal legerdemain of retroactive illegality, which again, in and of itself tends to make those enforcing victor’s justice near as bad as those they seek to prosecute, and certainly far far more selective in application of penalty than those they seek to prosecute.

… this also answers the point RS* raises when he states that Allied soldiers guilty of warcrimes should also, in all fairness and justice, be prosecuted.

Unfortunately, what it does not address, is the creation of a huge disincentive for any citizen of an Allied nation to then serve said nation in a military capacity in a time of conflict. I.E: Why be a soldier when being so can result in your imprisonment for obeying orders given by a superior who can and will have you imprisoned or executed for disobedience?
Is not this the root of the many, many hours recruits in the US and UK Forces spend in classes/lectures upon Military Law and Military Justice, and the UCMJ?

Kind and Respectful Regards Nick, Uyraell.

I would surmise that while the Allies certainly had their fair share of bastards, certain gov’ts–namely under authority of the U.S. Army–did investigate and prosecute murders of enemy prisoners in Sicily IIRC whereas the mass murder of Soviet prisoners was in fact Nazi state policy. While yes, there were horrors in respect to strategic and concentric bombing campaigns or the forced expulsion/ethnic cleansing of German-speaking civilians from parts of Eastern Europe for instance, the Allies were certainly able to prosecute the War and win it without resorting to the extent of wholesale excesses their enemies did…

[Uyraell]

Nick, Wizard, I accept the reproof.
By and large, I agree with you, gentlemen, though I’m somewhat uneasy over a soldier having to choose, in the heat of the moment, between obeying an illegal order or being penalised for not doing so by his own side and risking later penalty from the enemy for same.
I do still see the Nuremberg trials as legal legerdemain, to a large extent, Kellog-Briand Pact notwithstanding.
I regard the Kellog-Briand Pact as just another piece of League of Nations/diplomatic idiocy, weak-kneed and pointless, since it was never going to be enforceable without resort to the same sort of legal legerdemain as was employed in the Nuremberg trials in any case.
I have never had any but the most extremely cynical view of the Kellog-Briand Pact. At its’ most polite, I would describe the Kellog-Briand Pact as “Pointless utopian Diplomatic opium-dream Bullshit.”

Kind and Respectful Regards my friends, Uyraell.

[Rising_Sun]

The recent discussions are intelligent, well-informed, balanced and, most commendably, courteous on a topic which can polarise opinion between the “it’s so long ago, let it go” and “it’s so bad, it can never go unpunished” extremes. I agree generally with Wizard and similar views, but I can see the reason in opposing views.

However, let’s go beyond the essentially legalistic issues raised so far and look at it from the perspective of the victim.

If you were a relative of an orphaned child such as some of these, or the seventy year old adult now who was a child such as these,

who were victims of a monstrous campaign of racist and religious inhumanity and extermination, would you think that those responsible for it should not be brought to account for their evil actions?

I realise that I’m introducing a degree of emotion into a so far largely dispassionate discussion, but isn’t it emotion, in the sense of a gut response of what is right and wrong, which informs most of our views about what is and is not just?

Why shouldn’t the victim or his or her surviving relatives be allowed to see justice (whatever that means, which may be a different discussion) visited upon the wrongdoer?

Why should the distress charges about ancient crimes may cause the families (and in cases where the allegations are accurate, the unfortunately deluded families) outweigh the legitimate desire of the victim’s surviving families to see the offender brought to justice?

Put yourself in the position of a survivor of whichever of the many pieces of criminal bastardry occurred during WWII when the person, now aged at least well into his eighties, who committed that piece of criminal bastardry has been identified. He’s had about seven decades of life denied to those he killed. Do you say that you forgive him for killing one of your parents and agree that he should be allowed to live out the remainder of his life in peace, so that his old age and the comfort of his family won’t be disturbed? Or do you think the bastard has had an outstandingly good run and he’s long overdue to be brought to account, regardless of his age?

Or, to put it in a different context where legitimate outrage against an offender encourages many people to pay no attention to the defendant’s age at the time of trial, do you think that a paedophile who has raped dozens of children during the preceding seventy years should not stand trial because he’s too old? If you think he should stand trial, why shouldn’t people accused of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity? If you think aged war criminals etc shouldn’t stand trial, why do you think the aged paedophile shouldn’t be prosecuted?

If you think that we should now take account of the special circumstances of WWII to refrain from prosecuting crimes which occurred during it, can you explain why it would be acceptable not to prosecute an Allied soldier for executing an Axis prisoner when at the same time the civil legal system in the Allied soldier’s country did not alter its legal system to modify the law on murder to accommodate the special circumstances of the war affecting civil society?

[Wizard]

@Uyraell

Nick, Wizard, I accept the reproof.
By and large, I agree with you, gentlemen, though I’m somewhat uneasy over a solider having to choose, in the heat of the moment, between obeying an illegal order or being penalised for not doing so by his own side and risking later penalty from the enemy for same.
I do still see the Nuremberg trials as legal legerdemain, to a large extent, Kellog-Briand Pact notwithstanding.
I regard the Kellog-Briand Pact as just another piece of League of Nations/diplomatic idiocy, weak-kneed and pointless, since it was never going to be enforceable without resort to the same sort of legal legerdemain as was employed in the Nuremberg trials in any case.
I have never had any but the most extremely cynical view of the Kellog-Briand Pact. At its’ most polite, I would describe the Kellog-Brand Pact as “Pointless utopian Diplomatic opium-dream Bullshit.”

Kind and Respectful Regards my friends, Uyraell.

Well, we’ve established that you don’t think much of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. But it was just one example, and perhaps not the best one, of several conventions and treaties which existed before the Nazi’s willfully violated them even though the German government had previously agreed to abide by them. In any case, the charges against the German leadership at Nuremberg were not applications of retroactive law.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Nuremberg trials, and there were flaws, I think they were necessary steps to a new, if imperfect, international order in which some standards of civilized behavior can be enforced. Just as the principles of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence evolved over several centuries, I think commonly accepted principles of law regarding crimes committed in the pursuit of war will eventually evolve; either that or we will all descend once again into hopeless barbarism.

Regards

[Deaf_Smith]

There is no statute of limitation on murder. And murder they did.

Hunt them down like dogs no mater how old they are.

Deaf

[heimwehr_danzig]

I do understand what an emotive topic this is, but I do not see how you can retain the moral high ground when bringing an old man into court when he is unable even to stand or to breathe without an oxygen tank. Surely the sight of John Demanjuk looking so pitiful in the courtroom in Germany sent a clear message that the time has come to lay this episode of history to rest.
That being said, can I trust that those who feel that these men should be tried regardless of age or infirmity would say the same about the German government seeking charges against allied troops or officers for killing of German p.o.ws or civilians?

[Wizard]

@heimwehr_danzig

I do understand what an emotive topic this is, but I do not see how you can retain the moral high ground when bringing an old man into court when he is unable even to stand or to breathe without an oxygen tank. Surely the sight of John Demanjuk looking so pitiful in the courtroom in Germany sent a clear message that the time has come to lay this episode of history to rest.
That being said, can I trust that those who feel that these men should be tried regardless of age or infirmity would say the same about the German government seeking charges against allied troops or officers for killing of German p.o.ws or civilians?

The old Nazi’s and Nazi sympathizers who are brought into court look no more pitiful than did their victims during WW II; helpless men women and children forced to stand around naked while their executioners prepared to murder them.

And murder is murder no matter who commits it. If any government has evidence of war crimes it should be brought forth.

[Deaf_Smith]

but I do not see how you can retain the moral high ground when bringing an old man into court when he is unable even to stand or to breathe without an oxygen tank.

Right Wizard, I agree. There are many pictures of old Jewish men being shot in the back of the head by the Nazis. The Nazis didn’t have any compassion for their victims then, so why should we have compassion for them now?

They reaped what they sowed and I have not one ounce of pity for them.

Deaf

[Rising_Sun]

@Deaf_Smith

Right Wizard, I agree. There are many pictures of old Jewish men being shot in the back of the head by the Nazis. The Nazis didn’t have any compassion for their victims then, so why should we have compassion for them now?

I have compassion for old and allegedly bewildered (we’ve had a couple here who’ve played the same bewildered card, which perhaps deserves scepticism when one knows a little more about them) people required to front courts on ancient charges. It would be terrible if they were innocent and were being hounded in their dotage, and didn’t have the recall to defend themselves.

I also have a commitment to justice for the dead. And if the old and bewildered now are responsible for those the Nazis, and others, murdered, then they should undergo the legal process, no matter how burdensome it may be for them.

After all, our legal processes are impossibly better than the extra-judicial executions those people are accused of committing.

Nobody here opposed a 76 year old man being sent to gaol for murdering his wife http://manningham-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/keen-to-go-back-home/ or a paedophile priest being stuck in gaol until he’s at least 79 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/pedophile-priest-sorry/story-e6frf7kx-1111113008658 so I don’t see why anyone should oppose old people who’ve done far, far worse standing trial and, if convicted, finally doing their time.

[heimwehr_danzig]

What appears to be forgotten is that the examples quoted above did not have any duress placed upon them to commit their crimes. Nazi soldiers faced enourmous pressure to follow orders, both from superiors and comrades. I will grant you that it is often quoted that no one was ever shot for refusing to shoot Jews etc, but men in the field were not to know that.
We need to discriminate between the senior leaders of a regime and the men unfortunate enough to find themselvers ordered to commit horrendous tasks.
No one ever signed up for an Einsatzgruppen, except the top commanders. I suggest reading “Ordinary Men - the story of police battalion 101” and you will see exactly how ordinary these men were. Imagine you find yourself faced with this terrible moral dilemma and fear that if you do not pull that trigger you may never see your loved ones again.

[boyne_water]

I read Ordinary Men a few years ago,and a very good read it was.But i seem to remember that at the very first action(murder?) that the C.O. gave all the men the chance to refuse to take part.

Several did decline and as was promised suffered no penalties.What about the guilt of those who did take part,were they only obeying orders.

If i,m mistaken in my recollection of the book please feel free to correct me.