John Demjanjuk - Former Nazi subordinate faces trial.

[gloomyDAY]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_trying_demjanjuk

I've been following this story since it broke out last year. Demjanjuk was, allegedly, a former guard at the Sobibor death camp. Israel placed him on trial in the past, but was freed due to a "case of mistaken identity". Now the Germans are putting forth another trial to convict Demjanjuk as an accessory to the people that died in the death camp.

This is quite ridiculous. WWII ended over six decades ago, but this just keeps digging up the past. I wouldn't have a problem with the trial if the German prosecutors had any evidence. There is none! Just another scapegoat to make some guilty Germans who grew up post-1945 feel a little better about themselves.

John is 89 years-old, was some low ranking punk at a camp (as I said prior this is only alledged), and is as frail as an autumn leaf. Just let this one go since I believe most of us can live without throwing some old geezer to the wolves. Also, before one of you hooligans throw this out there, I'm not a Nazi sympathizer.

[Eki]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_trying_demjanjuk

I've been following this story since it broke out last year. Demjanjuk was, allegedly, a former guard at the Sobibor death camp. Israel placed him on trial in the past, but was freed due to a "case of mistaken identity". Now the Germans are putting forth another trial to convict Demjanjuk as an accessory to the people that died in the death camp.

This is quite ridiculous. WWII ended over six decades ago, but this just keeps digging up the past. I wouldn't have a problem with the trial if the German prosecutors had any evidence. There is none! Just another scapegoat to make some guilty Germans who grew up post-1945 feel a little better about themselves.

John is 89 years-old, was some low ranking punk at a camp (as I said prior this is only alledged), and is as frail as an autumn leaf. Just let this one go since I believe most of us can live without throwing some old geezer to the wolves. Also, before one of you hooligans throw this out there, I'm not a Nazi sympathizer.
I agree. How long will an 89 years-old live in a prison anyway? That's just waste of time and money. He has already lived his life and there's not much time left for punishment. This case just makes his prosecutors seem stupid and vindictive.

[Daniel]

I agree with both people above.

[Roamy]

What BS - He was only following orders or he would have had a trip to the "Oven" Now don't all you TIRE's ring in here about quantanamo it is a highly different deal. The conflict is still ongoing with the terrorists.

[Eki]

What BS - He was only following orders or he would have had a trip to the "Oven" Now don't all you TIRE's ring in here about quantanamo it is a highly different deal. The conflict is still ongoing with the terrorists.
Not exactly Guantanamo, but I think the CIA agents wanted for kidnapping in an Italian court should be extradited to Italy now and not wait until they are 89 year-olds.

[SportscarBruce]

This case has always appeared to me as more a JDL trophy hunt than anything else. Are we hunting 89 y/o Japanese or Soviet soldiers too who happened to participate in genocide? A: No

[Daniel]

This case has always appeared to me as more a JDL trophy hunt than anything else. Are we hunting 89 y/o Japanese or Soviet soldiers too who happened to participate in genocide? A: No
Bingo!

[Jag_Warrior]

This case has always appeared to me as more a JDL trophy hunt than anything else. Are we hunting 89 y/o Japanese or Soviet soldiers too who happened to participate in genocide? A: No

+1 :up:

[Easy Drifter]

I agree completely. Sheer utter stupidty and with very little if any evidence.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, I can understand trying someone if there is ample evidence. Anyone who was a victim would want justice. That said, not many left from this time and as it was said above, they don't really have a case.

This man will have to face a higher power if he did what they say he did when he passes. That is, if you believe in THAT. We will never know, and I think it is a waste of time and resources.

[Rudy Tamasz]

If you do the crime, you gotta do the time. You always have a choice regarding things to do and things not to do. People living under the German occupation had their choice, too. Some chose to join the resistance movement. Some chose just to live a life of dignity in the face of all atrocities. Some chose to be guards in death camps and bear full responsibility for that, no matter what their age is.

[Daniel]

If you do the crime, you gotta do the time. You always have a choice regarding things to do and things not to do. People living under the German occupation had their choice, too. Some chose to join the resistance movement. Some chose just to live a life of dignity in the face of all atrocities. Some chose to be guards in death camps and bear full responsibility for that, no matter what their age is.
It must be lovely to live in such a black and white world :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

It must be lovely to live in such a black and white world :)

Nothing wrong with that attitude. I am all for making people do the time when they commit a crime as monstrous as going along with feeding people into a gas chamber. Just the problem in this case is ole John probably didn't do what they say he did. At least, the case was never made in the last trial.....and is unlikely to stick THIS time. Still doesn't mean prosecuting people for monstrous crimes, even 60 years ago is a bad thing as a whole. Just make sure you have a really good case before dragging some one out of their retirement and obscuirity.

[Mark in Oshawa]

If you do the crime, you gotta do the time. You always have a choice regarding things to do and things not to do. People living under the German occupation had their choice, too. Some chose to join the resistance movement. Some chose just to live a life of dignity in the face of all atrocities. Some chose to be guards in death camps and bear full responsibility for that, no matter what their age is.

Rudy, I am not surprised you see it this way. Unlike many of us in the west, you see the monstrous crimes against humanity through a different lens. Libreal thinkers tend to think there is a limited time where prosecuting people for crimes like this is valid, and they also tend to think that there are no absolutes on moral conduct, and you can excuse almost anything.....

[Daniel]

Nothing wrong with that attitude. I am all for making people do the time when they commit a crime as monstrous as going along with feeding people into a gas chamber. Just the problem in this case is ole John probably didn't do what they say he did. At least, the case was never made in the last trial.....and is unlikely to stick THIS time. Still doesn't mean prosecuting people for monstrous crimes, even 60 years ago is a bad thing as a whole. Just make sure you have a really good case before dragging some one out of their retirement and obscuirity.
What I mean though is that evidence from this far back is sketchy at best and also you do have to ask yourself if this man really had a choice? I mean if someone held a gun to your head now and asked you to commit a crime you can't honestly say you wouldn't do it 100%? If he said "I'm not doing this" he'd have been shot and someone else would have been found to do his job. Whether he didn't do his job or not the only thing that was going to change was whether he died or not.

[Rudy Tamasz]

What I mean though is that evidence from this far back is sketchy at best

That's what the trials are for, to find out the truth. And the argument of the distant past doesn't work. You don't let a criminal off the hook just because the blood on his hands dried out long ago.


and also you do have to ask yourself if this man really had a choice? I mean if someone held a gun to your head now and asked you to commit a crime you can't honestly say you wouldn't do it 100%? If he said "I'm not doing this" he'd have been shot and someone else would have been found to do his job. Whether he didn't do his job or not the only thing that was going to change was whether he died or not.

The part after "if this man really had a choice" in your post shows that he really ;) had a choice, like many others. He chose to be on the dark side and is fully responsible for his choice.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Rudy, I am not surprised you see it this way. Unlike many of us in the west, you see the monstrous crimes against humanity through a different lens. Libreal thinkers tend to think there is a limited time where prosecuting people for crimes like this is valid, and they also tend to think that there are no absolutes on moral conduct, and you can excuse almost anything.....

I understand your line of reasoning but we are talking different things here. Maybe if he was was found guilty, I would pardon him because of his age. But I'm not talking values and personal attitudes. I'm talking law. The guy must be held accountable for the things he's done. If somebody's to pardon him, it must be the judge. Let us imagine Jack the Ripper is still alive and was caught by the law. Would you pardon him without a trial just because he's way too old and has a couple of chronic diseases?

[Daniel]

That's what the trials are for, to find out the truth. And the argument of the distant past doesn't work. You don't let a criminal off the hook just because the blood on his hands dried out long ago.



The part after "if this man really had a choice" in your post shows that he really ;) had a choice, like many others. He chose to be on the dark side and is fully responsible for his choice.
At the start of the war people didn't know what was going to happen so it wasn't necessarily a wilfull choice to join the dark side as you call it.

As I said because it's so long ago evidence is sketchy at best. I mean who's going to remember a face from 60 years ago? I'm all for the truth and I think that something along the line of a Truth commission whereby the truth comes out so that the survivors can at least feel that the truth is known about what happened to them.

The purpose of imprisoning someone is usually to serve as a warning to others not to do the same as them and also to keep others safe and lets be honest this man being imprisoned would serve neither of those purposes.

[Eki]

That's what the trials are for, to find out the truth.
Really? I thought criminal investigation was for that.

So you think carrying an 89 year-old sick man to a court in Germany just to find out if he did it or not is a sensible and decent thing to do?

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091128/capt.26f1997cd2664e81afc4d7e09db05aaa.germany_tryi ng_demjanjuk_ny362.jpg

What if it turns out that he's innocent and the stress caused by the trial kills him?

[Daniel]

Really? I thought criminal investigation was for that.

So you think carrying an 89 year-old sick man to a court in Germany just to find out if he did it or not is a sensible and decent thing to do?

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091128/capt.26f1997cd2664e81afc4d7e09db05aaa.germany_tryi ng_demjanjuk_ny362.jpg

What if it turns out that he's innocent and the stress caused by the trial kills him?
You horrible horrible man! Don't you know that the Jews endured the Holocaust and this now gives them the right to do whatever they want to anyone?

[Rudy Tamasz]

You horrible horrible man! Don't you know that the Jews endured the Holocaust and this now gives them the right to do whatever they want to anyone?

In my country Nazis and their non-German accomplices murdered 2.5 to 3 million of non-Jewish people in 1941-1944. Our feelings towards WWII have very little with the Jewish syndrome of victimization, although you may add a couple hundred thousand Jews to the list of victims on top of that. That's why in case of a strong suspicion people from our part of the world are at least entitled to look at the case befor making conclusions. This is why I disagree with your 'let-the-guy-go-just-because-he's-too-old' mantra.

[Lousada]

At the start of the war people didn't know what was going to happen so it wasn't necessarily a wilfull choice to join the dark side as you call it.


The guy was originally drafted in the Russian Army in 1940. Captured in '41 by the Germans and was then drafted in the German army. There he completed a training course to be a campguard.
His trial is apparently based on his time in Sobibor. There he was a smalltime guard in watchtowers and along the fence, but in that capacity he also assisted in escorting prisonors to the gaschambres.

I have a feeling they are only after him because they failed the first time. I wonder what kind of life you must have if you are still so full of hate after 60 years. It is not like this Demjanjuk profited much from his warcrimes nor did he ever commit them again. By being so determined to prosecute this old guy, they are actually achieving the exact opposite of what they want. Most people in this thread are siding with the alleged criminal, that is the world upside down!

[Daniel]

In my country Nazis and their non-German accomplices murdered 2.5 to 3 million of non-Jewish people in 1941-1944. Our feelings towards WWII have very little with the Jewish syndrome of victimization, although you may add a couple hundred thousand Jews to the list of victims on top of that. That's why in case of a strong suspicion people from our part of the world are at least entitled to look at the case befor making conclusions. This is why I disagree with your 'let-the-guy-go-just-because-he's-too-old' mantra.
I never said they should just let him go, all I'm saying is that a trial is silly and that they should have some sort of hearing where the truth can come out without the threat of a frail old man being on trial.

The Holocaust was a horrible horrible thing. But you don't move on by dragging up the past and taking it out on a low ranking soldier who is almost 90. There's a line between looking for justice and the truth and just being plain vindictive and this crosses it.

[Daniel]

The guy was originally drafted in the Russian Army in 1940. Captured in '41 by the Germans and was then drafted in the German army. There he completed a training course to be a campguard.
His trial is apparently based on his time in Sobibor. There he was a smalltime guard in watchtowers and along the fence, but in that capacity he also assisted in escorting prisonors to the gaschambres.

I have a feeling they are only after him because they failed the first time. I wonder what kind of life you must have if you are still so full of hate after 60 years. It is not like this Demjanjuk profited much from his warcrimes nor did he ever commit them again. By being so determined to prosecute this old guy, they are actually achieving the exact opposite of what they want. Most people in this thread are siding with the alleged criminal, that is the world upside down!
Exactly. What he did was horrible but who here can honestly say that they would have reacted differently? If I knew that a million Jews/Muslims/Christians/McDonalds workers or whatever were going to be gassed regardless of my actions and I was merely choosing whether I was going to die or not then I think I would choose to participate. I'm not proud of that but I like living and when choosing to die provides no actual benefit to anyone then I'll continue to do so.

You can either choose to take the moral highground and see it all in black and white like Rudy or you can see that this guy was a nobody who really had very little choice in the matter.

Where do we draw the line? Do we go after the people who ordered the Jews to be killed from up high? The people who designed the gas chambers? The people who invented the gas? The people who built the gas chambers? The people who transported the materials for the gas chambers? etc etc?

[Jag_Warrior]

My question remains, why is this restricted to Germans and World War II? This Demjanjuk fellow was found in the U.S. as a retired autoworker. Why don't we go after some retired Honda and Toyota workers in Japan, who used babies for bayonet practice in Nanking? Why don't we go after the former Japanese generals who rounded up Korean women to be used as sex slaves for their troops? Why don't we seek out members of the Pol Pot regime? Why don't we seek out members of the Viet Cong and the Laotian government who systematically killed members of the Hmong tribe? Why don't we go after the Russians who also committed atrocities during World War II, against innocent German civilians? For that matter, since the U.S. continues to devote resources to hunting Nazis, why is it that very few of the murders committed by members of the KKK, during the 1950's and 1960's, have been prosecuted in our own backyard? Are we putting forth even half this much effort to prosecute those at the higher levels (much less the lower levels) of the Croatian and Serbian militaries for their VERY recent crimes against humanity??? We won't even talk about Rwanda and the Congo.

I just wonder how many millions of dollars have been spent on John Demjanjuk, who even the Israelis turned loose, while thousands of others, who likely did worse things (within the past 15 years), continue to walk free? Considering this is almost 2010, it seems incredibly ridiculous to me that (especially) the United States continues to spend even a nickel maintaining the Office of Special Investigations. Especially since our Secret Service can't even protect our President from reality show attention wh*res, and illegal aliens from Cuba can waltz onto our nuclear power plants on Thanksgiving Day. To me, that's upside down. OSI should be gutted on Dec. 31 and the desk jockeys working there should be sent out to do IMPORTANT things, IMO.

[Daniel]

My question remains, why is this restricted to Germans and World War II? This Demjanjuk fellow was found in the U.S. as a retired autoworker. Why don't we go after some retired Honda and Toyota workers in Japan, who used babies for bayonet practice in Nanking? Why don't we go after the former Japanese generals who rounded up Korean women to be used as sex slaves for their troops? Why don't we seek out members of the Pol Pot regime? Why don't we seek out members of the Viet Cong and the Laotian government who systematically killed members of the Hmong tribe? Why don't we go after the Russians who also committed atrocities during World War II, against innocent German civilians? For that matter, since the U.S. continues to devote resources to hunting Nazis, why is it that very few of the murders committed by members of the KKK, during the 1950's and 1960's, have been prosecuted in our own backyard? Are we putting forth even half this much effort to prosecute those at the higher levels (much less the lower levels) of the Croatian and Serbian militaries for their VERY recent crimes against humanity??? We won't even talk about Rwanda and the Congo.

I just wonder how many millions of dollars have been spent on John Demjanjuk, who even the Israelis turned loose, while thousands of others, who likely did worse things (within the past 15 years), continue to walk free? Considering this is almost 2010, it seems incredibly ridiculous to me that (especially) the United States continues to spend even a nickel maintaining the Office of Special Investigations. Especially since our Secret Service can't even protect our President from reality show attention wh*res, and illegal aliens from Cuba can waltz onto our nuclear power plants on Thanksgiving Day. To me, that's upside down. OSI should be gutted on Dec. 31 and the desk jockeys working there should be sent out to do IMPORTANT things, IMO.
You HORRIBLE man! The Jews went through the holocaust and as mentioned before they can do what they want to anyone!

I couldn't agree more. If we use an analogy what they're doing to this guy is like closing the gate after the horses have bolted and the stable and fields have been demolished to build a shopping mall.....

[Daniel]

Just saw some moron on the TV whose family had died in the holocaust completely forgetting that this man is old, that the crimes were committed more than 60 years ago and that he was just a tiny cog in a big machine.

My grandfather was taken prisoner by the Italians at Tobruk in 1941 and spent a good 3 or 4 years on various POW camps in German held Europe and to this day doesn't harbour a grudge against anyone German (though he's not too fond of Italians to be fair :p ) and (before his mind went) was always quite happy to meet German or Italian servicemen from WW2 and would quite happily talk about his experiences. It was more like 2 people who supported rival football teams having a drink with each other than anything.

My granfather built a bridge and got the **** over it, why can't these tools?

[Eki]

My granfather built a bridge and got the **** over it, why can't these tools?
Good question. Yesterday, I watched a documentary about the Winter War 1939-1940 between Finland and the Soviet Union. It was done in co-operation between Finns and Russians and had both a Finnish and a Russian narrator. They were sitting by a camp fire. The Finnish narrator spoke excellent Russian, since he has lived in Russia and been an actor in Russian movies. He told that his grandfather had fought in the Winter War, had nightmares ever since and really hated the Soviets. The narrator said that when he the first time travelled to the Soviet Union his grandmother said that why don't you at least take a rifle with you. He had replied that he wouldn't be let in with a rifle. They let your grandfather in with a rifle, said the grandmother. When he had made a movie with the Soviets he brought a videotape of it to his grandfather and was very nervous about what his grandfather would think of it. After seeing the movie, the grandfather had said "I think the Russians are humans too".

[Jag_Warrior]

Just saw some moron on the TV whose family had died in the holocaust completely forgetting that this man is old, that the crimes were committed more than 60 years ago and that he was just a tiny cog in a big machine.

My grandfather was taken prisoner by the Italians at Tobruk in 1941 and spent a good 3 or 4 years on various POW camps in German held Europe and to this day doesn't harbour a grudge against anyone German (though he's not too fond of Italians to be fair :p ) and (before his mind went) was always quite happy to meet German or Italian servicemen from WW2 and would quite happily talk about his experiences. It was more like 2 people who supported rival football teams having a drink with each other than anything.

My granfather built a bridge and got the **** over it, why can't these tools?

Especially with the average soldier, I think that's how it should be. Your grandfather had it right, IMO. Especially when you consider how anxious we were to get former Nazis in here to help us with our space program, as well as others who helped us once the Soviets took over East Germany, this is all a bunch of political B.S., IMO.

What the Nazis did was wrong - no argument there. But it's not like they committed the only wrong of the 20th Century. Yet, that event still has the primary focus of the free world some 60+ years later... while other similar events have happened since and are happening RIGHT NOW. It seems that the lives of some are worth more than the lives of others.

Yeah, I'm not getting my panties in a twist over some alleged low ranking guard, whose true actions during the war remain in question... and who was released after a trial in Israel.

So as we continue to chase 100 year old Nazis around the world, can anyone tell me where Osama is??? Huh? Can ya?! :mad:

[BeansBeansBeans]

It isn't healthy to bear a grudge for so long, nor is it humane to put an 89 year old man to trial.

[gloomyDAY]

If you do the crime, you gotta do the time. You always have a choice regarding things to do and things not to do. People living under the German occupation had their choice, too. Some chose to join the resistance movement. Some chose just to live a life of dignity in the face of all atrocities. Some chose to be guards in death camps and bear full responsibility for that, no matter what their age is.I agree with you on that first sentence. If I were to slug someone and that person died, then manslaughter is the charge I would face in court. This circumstance is very different. The German government does not know the details regarding John's past nor do they have any evidence that ties him to the "killing" of defenseless people. According to ze Germans, the only thing this guy did was carry around a rifle and stop anyone from escaping a death camp, but it remains to be seen if they can prove that in court.

So, we take him to court. Then what happens? A) suppose that he gets let off the hook. Maybe John feels he was betrayed by his own government and humiliated by the entire ordeal. Maybe a little monetary compensation would go a long way to making him a lot better about the entire situation. B) Gets convicted and sits around a jail cell for a year and dies.

Either way seems like a lose-lose situation.


Libreal thinkers tend to think there is a limited time where prosecuting people for crimes like this is valid, and they also tend to think that there are no absolutes on moral conduct, and you can excuse almost anything..... :rolleyes: Please! Save that crap.

Me a liberal? Quite laughable you friendless old man. I just find it funny that when logic runs out the morons go for that little word "liberal" because they have nothing valid to say or add.

I don't think it's excusable to let someone off the hook over a time limit. Where in my initial post is that written? If Goebbles, Himmler, and Goering were still alive I'd be more than glad to see them face trial. If the Israelis found that the guy is clean, then I'm sure the Germans will fail to convict John.

[Roamy]

I would just fu______g kill him - he probably needs medical attention and at his age there is none under socialized medicine. So why is this so hard. You spend millions to kill this old sole. One shot and he is history
!! The Jews love you and may take you off the nuclear missile screen.

[gloomyDAY]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8388334.stm

Just as I suspected.

Ze Germans say that John was a captured Soviet soldier who volunteered to be a guard at the Sobibor death camp. Well, I think John had two choices. 1) Help the Nazis with the grill or 2) join the barbecue with the rest of the Jewish victims.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Eki]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8388334.stm

Just as I suspected.

Ze Germans say that John was a captured Soviet soldier who volunteered to be a guard at the Sobibor death camp. Well, I think John had two choices. 1) Help the Nazis with the grill or 2) join the barbecue with the rest of the Jewish victims.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yes, it was probably another "you're either with us or against us" situation.

[SportscarBruce]

The truth of the matter is many thousands of volunteers from conquered (liberated?) territories joined the SS. They did so not under coercion nor in order to fulfill a blood lust, Given a choice between Autocratic, Democratic, Bolshevik and National Socialist rule they chose the latter based on Hitler's economic record. He simply offered a better future for the indigenous people of Europe.

[Garry Walker]

It isn't healthy to bear a grudge for so long, nor is it humane to put an 89 year old man to trial.

If you have done the crime, then it is irrelevant how old you are, you should be put on trial for your crimes. The problem with Nazi "criminals" is that not always is there proof.

I also ask, why are the thousands of soviet soldiers who committed atrocities against the poles, finns, estonians, latvians, lithuanians, germans etc put on trial? There is enough evidence. In fact, there is enough proof to put quite many US and british soldiers on trial for what they did as well. But no, it is always about the holocaust and the nazis.

[SportscarBruce]

If you have done the crime, then it is irrelevant how old you are, you should be put on trial for your crimes. The problem with Nazi "criminals" is that not always is there proof.

I also ask, why are the thousands of soviet soldiers who committed atrocities against the poles, finns, estonians, latvians, lithuanians, germans etc put on trial? There is enough evidence. In fact, there is enough proof to put quite many US and british soldiers on trial for what they did as well. But no, it is always about the holocaust and the nazis.

Due to the same reason actions on part of Tony George, Bernie Ecclestone, and Max Mosley are routinely ridiculed or otherwise held up to scrutiny in the US motorsport press while criticisms toward reported transgressions or questionable business actions on part of JC & Brian France are apparently verboten;

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed to only those who own one." Abbott Joseph Liebling, journalist for the New Yorker

Or those with sufficient leverage therein...

Thus those who wield a gigantic lever within the halls of government, or justice, or academia are in a position to focus attention and apply the historical record selectively.

[markabilly]

At the time, they all think they are doing the right thing. all think they are doing tHEIr DUTY, BEING A PATRIOTIC whatever, serving god's will....yadada


I doubt anyone, including Hitler got or gets up in the morning and says, "okay let me see what pure evil i can do today" As Hitler was on his last legs, he kept saying that the geRman people did not deserve him, he had done so much good for them, and now they were failing him...... goering who was charged with and sentenced to death for making war on civilian targets (with his air force bombing cities) pointed to the british firebombing of cities such as Dresden that did far more damage and killed more women, children in one night than the total dead resulting from all of Goering's raids on london----to say nothing of the atomic bombs used on japanese cities or the nightly firebombing of Tokyo (that was estimated to kill 20k to 100k of civilains each night the firebombs were used......

but i say if he is quilty, then hang his old ass from a tree and let the buzzards pick his bones clean........shame that hitler and the rest escaped so easy

[Camelopard]

If you have done the crime, then it is irrelevant how old you are, you should be put on trial for your crimes. The problem with Nazi "criminals" is that not always is there proof.

I also ask, why are the thousands of soviet soldiers who committed atrocities against the poles, finns, estonians, latvians, lithuanians, germans etc put on trial? There is enough evidence. In fact, there is enough proof to put quite many US and british soldiers on trial for what they did as well. But no, it is always about the holocaust and the nazis.


The case of Salomon (Solomon or Shlomo) Morel makes for interesting reading, Israel had refused his extradition to Poland, suprise, suprise!


http://judicial-inc.biz/morel_a_jewish_monster.htm


from

http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=en&dzial=2&id=71&search=10599

The charges against Morel have been based primarilyon the evidence of over 100 witnesses, including 58 former inmates of the Zgoda camp.

In July 2005 this request was again formally refused.

The response rejected the more serious charges as being false, potentially part of an anti-semetic conspiracy, and again rejected extradition on the grounds that the statute of limitations against Morel had run out, and that Morel was in bad health.

Ewa Koj, a prosecutor with the IPN, criticized the decision, but the Polish government decided not to press the matter further.

[Mark in Oshawa]

.


Me a liberal? Quite laughable you friendless old man. I just find it funny that when logic runs out the morons go for that little word "liberal" because they have nothing valid to say or add.

I don't think it's excusable to let someone off the hook over a time limit. Where in my initial post is that written? If Goebbles, Himmler, and Goering were still alive I'd be more than glad to see them face trial. If the Israelis found that the guy is clean, then I'm sure the Germans will fail to convict John.

First off I am NOT old. 44 Aint old...lol. Secondly, I said Libreals tend to excuse crimes if the perp is aged and the crime was a long time ago. Just look how Hollywood reacted to Polanski possibly being extradited for a crime he was CONVICTED of and ADMITTED to.

I am with Rudy, and Rudy explained it best as I thought he likely would. What people have to remember that is for the millions of survivors and their families in Eastern Europe, they don't want this to go away. It isn't the Jewish courts that are putting this guy on trail in Israel. It is the GERMANS. I don't see a conviction coming from this to be honest after thinking about a few days, but I have not seen the evidence for the prosecution either.

As for him joining the inmates or being a guard, it is a moral choice to either participate in a crime or be a victim of it. I suspect he was a little too enthusiastic in his work for people to keep dragging him into court. He wants us to believe he was a pawn but never forget some of the most virulent nasty anti-semitics were in the Ukranine. I am sure many people felt the wrath of this man's displeasure if he is half as bad as people want to claim he is. Let the courts decide. Considering he was let off by one court already, I wonder what the evidence is, but there has to be some merit in putting him on trial. Age is no defence against a crime.

[Camelopard]

The case of Salomon (Solomon or Shlomo) Morel makes for interesting reading, Israel had refused his extradition to Poland, suprise, suprise!


http://judicial-inc.biz/morel_a_jewish_monster.htm


from

http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=en&dzial=2&id=71&search=10599

The charges against Morel have been based primarilyon the evidence of over 100 witnesses, including 58 former inmates of the Zgoda camp.

In July 2005 this request was again formally refused.

The response rejected the more serious charges as being false, potentially part of an anti-semetic conspiracy, and again rejected extradition on the grounds that the statute of limitations against Morel had run out, and that Morel was in bad health.

Ewa Koj, a prosecutor with the IPN, criticized the decision, but the Polish government decided not to press the matter further.



Come on Rudy and Mark, I'm really interested to know your opinion about this bloke!

[Jag_Warrior]

Maybe ol' Johnny Boy should have joined up with the Japanese army instead of the Germans. Then he could have bayoneted some Chinese babies, helped gang rape some Korean women, retired from Toyota and he'd be having a Mai Tai, while sitting on the deck of his house in Hawaii now... and nobody would be bothering him.

One of my favorite lines from the classic movie Grand Prix, was spoken by the Izo Yamura character to James Garner's character, Pete Aaron: "I believe that some things must not be left unsaid. There will come a time when you will ask yourself, 'What did he do in the war, this man, Yamura?' "

It appears to me that we have different questions for different people.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Come on Rudy and Mark, I'm really interested to know your opinion about this bloke!

Put him on trial. Israel may have their reasons for fighting extradition that may not have any validity or some. I don't know. I am all for putting people on trial for things they do for the most part. That includes the CIA agents that Eki was all bent out of shape about that did something in Italy. However, if a government has their reasons for not approving the extradition, then you have to judge on whether it is a simple coverup, or is their a national security issue, and is there other political machinations at work. For the most part, I say put em on trial.

[Camelopard]

Put him on trial. Israel may have their reasons for fighting extradition that may not have any validity or some. I don't know. I am all for putting people on trial for things they do for the most part. That includes the CIA agents that Eki was all bent out of shape about that did something in Italy. However, if a government has their reasons for not approving the extradition, then you have to judge on whether it is a simple coverup, or is their a national security issue, and is there other political machinations at work. For the most part, I say put em on trial.


Too late, he is dead.

You know as well as I do that Israel would never extradite 'one of their own', regardless of what they done.

By the way did you actually go to either of the websites mentioned?

[SportscarBruce]

Too late, he is dead.

You know as well as I do that Israel would never extradite 'one of their own', regardless of what they done.

By the way did you actually go to either of the websites mentioned?

NewsMax and FoxNews?

:D

[markabilly]

Maybe ol' Johnny Boy should have joined up with the Japanese army instead of the Germans. Then he could have bayoneted some Chinese babies, helped gang rape some Korean women, retired from Toyota and he'd be having a Mai Tai, while sitting on the deck of his house in Hawaii now... and nobody would be bothering him.

One of my favorite lines from the classic movie Grand Prix, was spoken by the Izo Yamura character to James Garner's character, Pete Aaron: "I believe that some things must not be left unsaid. There will come a time when you will ask yourself, 'What did he do in the war, this man, Yamura?' "

It appears to me that we have different questions for different people.
No, just different winners of a war in charge of what happens afterwards. Had the chinese conquered japan and occupied it, then the "retirements" would have happenned in 1946, 47 .....but they did not. In those areas occupied by russians, they killed SS and anything looking like SS for about 7 years after the war, meanwhile stalin continued his own internal liquidations of his own people

[Jag_Warrior]

No, just different winners of a war in charge of what happens afterwards. Had the chinese conquered japan and occupied it, then the "retirements" would have happenned in 1946, 47 .....but they did not. In those areas occupied by russians, they killed SS and anything looking like SS for about 7 years after the war, meanwhile stalin continued his own internal liquidations of his own people

I don't mean immediately following the war. I mean some 60+ years on. The Russians had nothing to do with the OSI or how we've chosen to run it. The Russians are not preventing us from hunting down former Japanese officers and politicians who were involved in Nanking and the operation of "Comfort Women" brothels all across Asia. Neither the Russians nor anyone else is preventing the United States from hunting down members of the Pol Pot regime or the regime in Rwanda.

So as I said, Johnny should have joined the Japanese army. Then the only people who would even be mentioning his alleged crimes would be a bunch of aged Korean women, who are basically being ignored by the world anyway.

It's like Orwell's Animal Farm: All animals are equal (but some are more equal than others).

[Mark in Oshawa]

Come on Rudy and Mark, I'm really interested to know your opinion about this bloke!

My opinion? If the websites are accurate, he should have been tried. No argument. That said, a Jew put in charge of Nazi's in 1945 was likely to do what was done to him. You commit the crimes against the Jew's in the manner the Nazi's did, don't be surprised when a thug like Stalin puts one in charge of the Nazi's destiny in the same camp.

It was WW2. Many heinous acts were committed by the Axis, a lot by Stalin and some by some stupid and heinous Western Nations. The difference is, the regime of Stalin and the Axis countries condoned such behaviour. The UK, US and the Western nations did NOT.....

If Israel wanted to protect this guy, shame on them...doesn't make me condemn the whole nation of Israel however. Most democracies have a policy or defense of some stupid and illegal behaviour at one time or another. Doesn't make all the people or even their government wrong on everything...

[Daniel]

My opinion? If the websites are accurate, he should have been tried. No argument. That said, a Jew put in charge of Nazi's in 1945 was likely to do what was done to him. You commit the crimes against the Jew's in the manner the Nazi's did, don't be surprised when a thug like Stalin puts one in charge of the Nazi's destiny in the same camp.

It was WW2. Many heinous acts were committed by the Axis, a lot by Stalin and some by some stupid and heinous Western Nations. The difference is, the regime of Stalin and the Axis countries condoned such behaviour. The UK, US and the Western nations did NOT.....

If Israel wanted to protect this guy, shame on them...doesn't make me condemn the whole nation of Israel however. Most democracies have a policy or defense of some stupid and illegal behaviour at one time or another. Doesn't make all the people or even their government wrong on everything...
The Brits firebombed German cities and IMHO they're as much war criminals as anyone else.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Brits firebombed German cities and IMHO they're as much war criminals as anyone else.

No they are NOT. Here is why: In those days, the war was fought in this manner because it is the manner the wars were fought. Is it right? NO, morally in TODAY's world and morals it isn't. In 1940 it was a fight for the survival of all we hold dear. Should Bomber Harris been tried? You would say yes, I would say what would it have accomplished? All we can hope is in the future we never see a conflict where such actions are necessary. In 1940, many in the UK thought it was 50-50 that they might have to learn German by the end of year.....we don't see that sort of threat now, so don't use today's standard to judge people like Bomber Harris, Curtis LeMay and the like....

[Saint Devote]

The Brits firebombed German cities and IMHO they're as much war criminals as anyone else.

This is an exceptionally immoral and shocking statement and besmirches the brave forces that prevented teh world being dominated by an evil force eorse than anything in the Dark Ages.

The initiator of force was Germany, a tyrrany. Nobody can make a moral equivalence between the dictatorship of Hitler and the free nation of Britain, defending itself.

The people of Germany were totally morally and practically responsible for the rise to power of Hitler.

And anyone who opposed Hitler would have welcomed the attacks of the forces of freedom - the Allies. Accounts by people in Germany or France that WERE against the nazis state that they celebrated when Britain and the United States primarily, attacked.

War means total war and the ONLY responsibility that Britain and America had was to win the war. The blame for all deaths in World War Two is Germany, Japan and Italy.

Any other view brings into serious question the morality of the accuser because it declares that there is no absolute wrong or right.

[Saint Devote]

My opinion? If the websites are accurate, he should have been tried. No argument. That said, a Jew put in charge of Nazi's in 1945 was likely to do what was done to him. You commit the crimes against the Jew's in the manner the Nazi's did, don't be surprised when a thug like Stalin puts one in charge of the Nazi's destiny in the same camp.

It was WW2. Many heinous acts were committed by the Axis, a lot by Stalin and some by some stupid and heinous Western Nations. The difference is, the regime of Stalin and the Axis countries condoned such behaviour. The UK, US and the Western nations did NOT.....

If Israel wanted to protect this guy, shame on them...doesn't make me condemn the whole nation of Israel however. Most democracies have a policy or defense of some stupid and illegal behaviour at one time or another. Doesn't make all the people or even their government wrong on everything...

Jews were put in charge of NAZIs after the War and they did NOT act like the murderers they were guarding - they were American soldiers and the acted properly to ensure justice was done, not savage anarchy as you imagine.

To condemn Israel shows ingorance over this case. Demjanjuk's sentence was overturned because the Court of Appeal found the evidence to be uncertain and released him because the laternative was maybe the imprisonment of an innocent man.

Subsequently when the Soviet Union was beaten by the United States and fell, the documents that previsouly were not accessible were obtained and shed new evidence which removed the uncertainty as to whom Demjanjuk was.

[SportscarBruce]

Jews were put in charge of NAZIs after the War and they did NOT act like the murderers they were guarding - they were American soldiers

Are you stating Jews organized and ran the Nuremburg trials, the American security detatchment was made up of Jewish American soldiers, or both?


and the acted properly to ensure justice was done, not savage anarchy as you imagine.

Not quite;

From an Oct. 28, 1946 dispatch in Time magazine headlined “Night Without Dawn” (the ellipses are in the original):

At 1:11 a.m. he entered the gymnasium, and all officers, official witnesses and correspondents rose to attention. Ribbentrop’s manacles were removed and he mounted the steps (there were 13) to the gallows. With the noose around his neck, he said: “My last wish … is an understanding between East and West. …” All present removed their hats. The executioner tightened the noose. A chaplain standing beside him prayed. The assistant executioner pulled the lever, the trap dropped open with a rumbling noise, and Ribbentrop’s hooded figure disappeared. The rope was suddenly taut, and swung back & forth, creaking audibly.

The executioner was U.S. Master Sergeant John C. Woods, 43, of San Antonio, a short, chunky man who in his 15 years as U.S. Army executioner has hanged 347 people. Said he afterwards: “I hanged those ten Nazis … and I am proud of it. … I wasn’t nervous. … A fellow can’t afford to have nerves in this business. … I want to put in a good word for those G.I.s who helped me … they all did swell. … I am trying to get [them] a promotion. … The way I look at this hanging job, somebody has to do it. I got into it kind of by accident, years ago in the States “

Ten more executions would follow that evening, but for all of Sergeant Woods’ experience (and for all of the collected wisdom the military had at its disposal on proper hanging techniques), the Nuremberg executions were, it seems, a ghoulishly untidy affair.

Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., a professor of law at the University of Georgia Law School, noted that many of the executed Nazis fell from the gallows with insufficient force to snap their necks, resulting in a macabre, suffocating death struggle that in some cases lasted many, many minutes:

The ten hangings, which officially brought the Nuremberg Trial proceedings to a close, continue to exert a morbid appeal. …

The executions, in a brightly lighted prison gymnasium where three looming black wooden gallows had been erected, were witnessed by a handful of Allied military officers and eight journalists, one of whom, Kingsbury Smith of International News Service, wrote a famous newspaper article, “The Execution of Nazi War Criminals, 16 October 1946,” based on his eyewitness observations.

Although Smith discreetly omitted mentioning it, the experienced Army hangman, Master Sgt. John C. Woods, botched the executions. A number of the hanged Nazis died, not quickly from a broken neck as intended, but agonizingly from slow strangulation. Ribbentrop and Sauckel each took 14 minutes to choke to death, while Keitel, whose death was the most painful, struggled for 24 minutes at the end of the rope before expiring

Not to mention the lack of an appeal process.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/the-nuremburg-hangings-not-so-smooth-either/

There's also the issue of western allies lying to Cossack SS volunteers immediately following the cessation of hostilities in order to facilitate their massacre at the hands of Stalin's executioners.

On 28 May 1945, the British Army arrived at Camp Peggetz, in Lienz, where there were 2,479 Cossacks, including 2,201 officers and soldiers.[10] They went to invite the Cossacks to an important conference with British officials, informing them that they would return to Lienz by six o’clock that evening; some Cossacks worried, but the British reassured them that everything was in order. One British officer told the Cossacks: “I assure you, on my word of honour as a British officer, that you are just going to a conference”.[10] The Lienz Cossack repatriation was exceptional, because the Cossacks forcefully resisted their British repatriation to the USSR; a Cossack noted: “The NKVD or the Gestapo would have slain us with truncheons, the British did it with their word of honor.”

The first to commit suicide, by hanging, was the Cossack editor Evgenij Tarruski. The second was General Silkin, who shot himself. . . . The Cossacks refused to board the trucks. British soldiers [armed] with pistols and clubs began using their clubs, aiming at the heads of the prisoners. They first dragged the men out of the crowd, and threw them into the trucks. The men jumped out. They beat them again, and threw them onto the floor of the trucks. Again, they jumped out. The British then hit them with rifle butts until they lay unconscious, and threw them, like sacks of potatoes, in the trucks. — Operation Keelhaul (1973), by Julius Epstein.

The British transported the Cossacks to a prison where the Soviets assumed their custody. In the town of Tristach, Austria, there is a memorial commemorating General Helmuth von Pannwitz and soldiers of the XVth SS Cossack Cavalry Corps who were killed in action or died as PoWs.

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

[Mark in Oshawa]

This is an exceptionally immoral and shocking statement and besmirches the brave forces that prevented teh world being dominated by an evil force eorse than anything in the Dark Ages.

The initiator of force was Germany, a tyrrany. Nobody can make a moral equivalence between the dictatorship of Hitler and the free nation of Britain, defending itself.

The people of Germany were totally morally and practically responsible for the rise to power of Hitler.

And anyone who opposed Hitler would have welcomed the attacks of the forces of freedom - the Allies. Accounts by people in Germany or France that WERE against the nazis state that they celebrated when Britain and the United States primarily, attacked.

War means total war and the ONLY responsibility that Britain and America had was to win the war. The blame for all deaths in World War Two is Germany, Japan and Italy.

Any other view brings into serious question the morality of the accuser because it declares that there is no absolute wrong or right.
That will fall on deaf ears with Daniel. On this one, he thinks the RAF should be with the Nazi's. STupid I know...but there you go.

In a war where the enemy dropped bombs on you for a year and a half, specifically your civilians (Coventry anyone? East end of London?), you wouldn't think twice about giving the same back when it was clear it was a total fight to the death. The Nazi's were willing to fight to the point where their cities were RUBBLE and no one was not scarred, and yet until Hitler committed suicide were any of the top German's able to bring about a surrender.

Daniel, you cant use moral relativism to judge people in the 40's.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jews were put in charge of NAZIs after the War and they did NOT act like the murderers they were guarding - they were American soldiers and the acted properly to ensure justice was done, not savage anarchy as you imagine.

To condemn Israel shows ingorance over this case. Demjanjuk's sentence was overturned because the Court of Appeal found the evidence to be uncertain and released him because the laternative was maybe the imprisonment of an innocent man.

Subsequently when the Soviet Union was beaten by the United States and fell, the documents that previsouly were not accessible were obtained and shed new evidence which removed the uncertainty as to whom Demjanjuk was.

I was NOT saying all the Jew's were monsters at all. That said, the gent in question that Camelopard was pointing out to me obviously wanted his revenge, and the Israeli gov't protected him from extradition.

Demanjuik I have to say has been kicked around by two or three justice systems for a decade now in 3 nations. He is YET to be convicted. I am all for trying people who willingly and happily went along with the final solution. I just wonder how much of a criminal this guy is. The evidence hasn't convicted him yet, and most nations have a concept of double jeopardy. If we are going to have a fair trial (which is the difference between civilized nations and the dictatorships that commit crimes against humanity)and he has been able to avoid a conviction, the concerted effort to find new evidence is just tossing aside the benefit of doubt that is implicit in a free society.

I wasn't there, you were not there, the man is 89. I am all for trying people no matter how old for heinous crimes, and I am not saying this man shouldn't be tried, but I am a little tired of any society that will repeatedly put a guy like this through the ringer because they botched the prosecution the first time.

[Daniel]

No they are NOT. Here is why: In those days, the war was fought in this manner because it is the manner the wars were fought. Is it right? NO, morally in TODAY's world and morals it isn't. In 1940 it was a fight for the survival of all we hold dear. Should Bomber Harris been tried? You would say yes, I would say what would it have accomplished? All we can hope is in the future we never see a conflict where such actions are necessary. In 1940, many in the UK thought it was 50-50 that they might have to learn German by the end of year.....we don't see that sort of threat now, so don't use today's standard to judge people like Bomber Harris, Curtis LeMay and the like....

Well that's my opinion and I'm going to stick to it. I steadfastly believe that dropping the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do because it saved lives in the long run and shortened the war. The firebombing of purely civilian targets to attempt to break the will of the people is never right or just, it's genocide and I rank it up there with what was done to the Jews during WW2 in terms of how horrendous it was. Not quite as sinister of course but it's still not acceptable. The US managed to bomb strategic places like Schweinfurt and Wolfsburg without having to murder tens of thousands of innocent civilians. The war in the Pacific was also vastly different. In Europe you had people who part way through the war had lost the will to fight and the result was always inevitable, but in the Pacific if Japan was invaded it was always going to end in a ****storm and more people were going to die. Different tactics were necessary there and whilst what happened was still horrible, it was what needed to be done to get the job done without even more loss of life. What happened in Europe (on both sides I might add) was needless and inherently evil.

Why did the German civilians have to pay because Bomber command was too ****ing wimpy to bomb during the day and didn't have as good bombers and escorts as the US?

When someone choosed to become a serviceman or servicewoman they surrender their right to not be burnt to a crisp in a firestorm or blown to bits or whatever, but civilians haven't opted into this and all reasonable measures should be taken to limit civilian losses. You can argue that they were partly responsible because they elected Hitler but if we go by that logic it's OK for some terrorist to blow Fousto, Tony, Chuck etc up because they (probably) voted for Dubya. That's ****ed logic if ever I've seen it.

The victors write history and I'm almost certain that if the Germans had won the war that anyone involved in the decision to firebomb German cities would have been hung or shot and for good reason.

[Daniel]

That will fall on deaf ears with Daniel. On this one, he thinks the RAF should be with the Nazi's. STupid I know...but there you go.

In a war where the enemy dropped bombs on you for a year and a half, specifically your civilians (Coventry anyone? East end of London?), you wouldn't think twice about giving the same back when it was clear it was a total fight to the death. The Nazi's were willing to fight to the point where their cities were RUBBLE and no one was not scarred, and yet until Hitler committed suicide were any of the top German's able to bring about a surrender.

Daniel, you cant use moral relativism to judge people in the 40's.

Of course his posts will fall on deaf ears, I've used the ignore function with his posts for the last 2 weeks or so.

I'm a realist, I realise that sometimes war is going to get a bit messy and civilians will be killed, this is just a fact of life. But when you set out to kill civilians en masse whether you're British, American, German or a flipping Mongolian that's evil and that's wrong. Whether you herd people into a gas chamber or bomb them from a few thousand feet up with incendiaries you're still comitting genocide. If it actually shortens the war then it can be acceptable but this wasn't the case in Germany at all.

What stopped the Germans in their tracks was the fact that a nice big chunk of their men of fighting age were either dead or captured and the Allies systematically targeted manufacturing and power generation assets as well as limiting the Germans access to raw materials and oil (see Ploesti air raids) which basically meant that the Germans simply could not keep their war machine going. Do you actually believe that if the Germans taken Moscow and had kept on pushing east through Russia that they would have laid their arms down because the Brits were firebombing their cities? Fat chance!

War crimes are war crimes regardless of whether you're on the winning side or not.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Of course his posts will fall on deaf ears, I've used the ignore function with his posts for the last 2 weeks or so..

I never ignore anyone...miss too much fun doing that..lol


I'm a realist, I realise that sometimes war is going to get a bit messy and civilians will be killed, this is just a fact of life. But when you set out to kill civilians en masse whether you're British, American, German or a flipping Mongolian that's evil and that's wrong. Whether you herd people into a gas chamber or bomb them from a few thousand feet up with incendiaries you're still comitting genocide. If it actually shortens the war then it can be acceptable but this wasn't the case in Germany at all..
You are using today's mindset. Of course it is wrong. It was wrong then BUT the difference is society was seeing a threat that it couldn't cope with, and the Allies basically were responding to the German's in the manner in which they were attacked. The Blitz of London basically told the British that the German people/leadership didn't care a tinker's whatever who they killed. So the RAF responded in kind. Precision bombing was NOT an exact science. Targetting just industrial and military targets was fraught with collateral damage. To blame either air force on either side for all of this is to presume they could hit wha they aimed at. As for it shortening the war, it did in the sense that eventually it did affect the way Germany was able to produce. It didn't work as adverstised by the bomber proponents but that was not the thinking of the time. Putting today's expeirence and moral codes to this period of time is a dangerous game.....


What stopped the Germans in their tracks was the fact that a nice big chunk of their men of fighting age were either dead or captured and the Allies systematically targeted manufacturing and power generation assets as well as limiting the Germans access to raw materials and oil (see Ploesti air raids) which basically meant that the Germans simply could not keep their war machine going. Do you actually believe that if the Germans taken Moscow and had kept on pushing east through Russia that they would have laid their arms down because the Brits were firebombing their cities? Fat chance!

War crimes are war crimes regardless of whether you're on the winning side or not.

What stopped them in their tracks was a fight for every yard of Germany coupled with bombing EVERYTHING. Any sane nation would have sued for peace, and many Germans fought the Allies knowing of course that most of them had to have it in their heads from the fall of 44 on they were going to lose. Furthermore, most didn't fear the British/American/Canadian/French allies like they did the Russians. Yet they fought anyhow. Is there anything SANE about how the German's fought? No....If the Germans had managed to take the Russians, you might be speaking German today pal. It was that scary to our grandfather's generation. Hence the despearate measures that were used. You going to insist dropping the A-bomb on Japan wasn't a crime??? Much the same there and worse. At some point, you have to accept war is messy, and many who shouldn't be killed will be. If it is an act of out right barbarism in cold blood, then It is a war crime.

[Daniel]

I never ignore anyone...miss too much fun doing that..lol


You are using today's mindset. Of course it is wrong. It was wrong then BUT the difference is society was seeing a threat that it couldn't cope with, and the Allies basically were responding to the German's in the manner in which they were attacked. The Blitz of London basically told the British that the German people/leadership didn't care a tinker's whatever who they killed. So the RAF responded in kind. Precision bombing was NOT an exact science. Targetting just industrial and military targets was fraught with collateral damage. To blame either air force on either side for all of this is to presume they could hit wha they aimed at. As for it shortening the war, it did in the sense that eventually it did affect the way Germany was able to produce. It didn't work as adverstised by the bomber proponents but that was not the thinking of the time. Putting today's expeirence and moral codes to this period of time is a dangerous game.....



What stopped them in their tracks was a fight for every yard of Germany coupled with bombing EVERYTHING. Any sane nation would have sued for peace, and many Germans fought the Allies knowing of course that most of them had to have it in their heads from the fall of 44 on they were going to lose. Furthermore, most didn't fear the British/American/Canadian/French allies like they did the Russians. Yet they fought anyhow. Is there anything SANE about how the German's fought? No....If the Germans had managed to take the Russians, you might be speaking German today pal. It was that scary to our grandfather's generation. Hence the despearate measures that were used. You going to insist dropping the A-bomb on Japan wasn't a crime??? Much the same there and worse. At some point, you have to accept war is messy, and many who shouldn't be killed will be. If it is an act of out right barbarism in cold blood, then It is a war crime.
As is typical of some of our North American cousins you don't seem to have read my post.

[markabilly]

War crimes are war crimes regardless of whether you're on the winning side or not.

that was my point, except those who get executed, are executed by the winners who take over the country. The Chinese and Koreans did not take over japan. Simple.

The firebombing of purely civilain targets such as Dresden was a war crime. The same for Tokyo, to say nothing of the A bomb. Little differrent than what the naxis did in concentration camps, except the death from above was very impersonal for those doing it and done at great risk for those dropping bombs

But I am glad we won, and what is more, i think a quick death was NOT good, so I my guess that old sgt woods had set it up to let them dangle longer.....what is more, he would have known at the first "bothched hanging" that something needed to be adjusted and the fact that it was not.....well, GOOD. They deserved worse, far worse

[Daniel]

that was my point, except those who get executed, are executed by the winners who take over the country. The Chinese and Koreans did not take over japan. Simple.

The firebombing of purely civilain targets such as Dresden was a war crime. The same for Tokyo, to say nothing of the A bomb. Little differrent than what the naxis did in concentration camps, except the death from above was very impersonal for those doing it and done at great risk for those dropping bombs

But I am glad we won, and what is more, i think a quick death was NOT good, so I my guess that old sgt woods had set it up to let them dangle longer.....what is more, he would have known at the first "bothched hanging" that something needed to be adjusted and the fact that it was not.....well, GOOD. They deserved worse, far worse

Well tbh Markabilly I have to disagree with you.

I think it could reasonably be argued that althought horrible, the bombing of Japan with both conventional and nuclear weapons did shorten the war and also lessened the loss of life on both sides. I mean did the US have to invade Japan to stop the war? Nope, but even though the Brits barbecued tens of thousands of German civilians they still had to fight till the last inch of German soil to stop the war.

[markabilly]

Well tbh Markabilly I have to disagree with you.

I think it could reasonably be argued that althought horrible, the bombing of Japan with both conventional and nuclear weapons did shorten the war and also lessened the loss of life on both sides. I mean did the US have to invade Japan to stop the war? Nope, but even though the Brits barbecued tens of thousands of German civilians they still had to fight till the last inch of German soil to stop the war.

Good point, as long as it shortens the war, anything goes. :up:

BBQing children and babies is even more effective, even if they are too young to carry a gun, when you actually invade the area, it saves you from having to feed them....

The SS was just doing its duty. Getting rid of all those jews and other undesirables in concentration camps, freed up more german resourses to try to shorten the war and help them win. Plus it eliminated potential sources of resistance activity and resource for the enemy.

The fact that there were plenty of great military targets, for example the harbor where the remanents of the japanese navy remained near tokoyo, for using the atomic bomb should not slow one down

Not when you can blast purely civilian targets that had remained totally untouched because of lack of any military value, just to shorten the war when other targets would do the same or more......

So why are we not war criminals and they are? we won, and they did not.

However, none of it would have happenned if those guys that the good Sgt Woods let dangle, had not done what they did. A quick snap of the neck was too good for them, indeed a slow strangulation was too good for them....now a little bit of being "drawn" as in drawn and quartered....would have been a good start

[Mark in Oshawa]

As is typical of some of our North American cousins you don't seem to have read my post.

I missed the section where you are ok with the A-Bombing of Japan. My apologies but don't be lumping me in with Anthony and Fousto.

You are inconsistent. To stand there and say Dresden was wrong but Hiroshima was right is splitting hairs....

Either they were both wrong, or both right. The intent was the same, to wipe the city and whomever happened to be still there off the map. Hiroshima was marginally a military target, but was not hit much by the USAAF. Dresden was of no real military value but the intent was the same in both cases. Yet you approve of the A-Bomb because you believed it saved lives. Yes...it did, American and Allied lives as well as Japanese, but you think Dresden is genocide. Never mind that the goal of the Allies was to not kill all Germans but was to end the war. So I guess nukes are ok, but don't be sloppy with your Lancasters and your firebombing?