Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
-
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
It is the nature of the charge against him that makes it a show trial.
If he were charged for something he can be shown to have done himself, it would not be a show trial.
Hannah Arendt famously said of the Eichmann trial that he was being tried not for what he himself did, but for what was done to the Jews in total. That same consideration applies to the recent trials, including that of Demjanjuk, who was tried for everything that was done to the Jews at Sobibor, not for anything he was known to have done there himself.
The same applies to the present trial; Groening is being tried for everything that was done at Auschwitz, not for what he himself did, which as I wrote amounts to the receipt of stolen goods.
If he were charged for something he can be shown to have done himself, it would not be a show trial.
Hannah Arendt famously said of the Eichmann trial that he was being tried not for what he himself did, but for what was done to the Jews in total. That same consideration applies to the recent trials, including that of Demjanjuk, who was tried for everything that was done to the Jews at Sobibor, not for anything he was known to have done there himself.
The same applies to the present trial; Groening is being tried for everything that was done at Auschwitz, not for what he himself did, which as I wrote amounts to the receipt of stolen goods.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10162
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
Hi Michael,
All the people you mention - Eichmann, Demjanjuk and Groening - were all, in varying degrees, unarguably contributory to the deaths of millions of Jews and others.
Are you saying that because one cannot specifically attribute the death of Gypsy X, or Jew Y to accused Z, that Z should suffer no sanction whatsoesver?
If so, how is justice to be done in cases where such massive numbers of both victims and perpetrators are involved that matching one individual to another individual is virtually impossible, or where the annihilation is so nearly total that only perpetrators may survive?
Cheers,
Sid.
All the people you mention - Eichmann, Demjanjuk and Groening - were all, in varying degrees, unarguably contributory to the deaths of millions of Jews and others.
Are you saying that because one cannot specifically attribute the death of Gypsy X, or Jew Y to accused Z, that Z should suffer no sanction whatsoesver?
If so, how is justice to be done in cases where such massive numbers of both victims and perpetrators are involved that matching one individual to another individual is virtually impossible, or where the annihilation is so nearly total that only perpetrators may survive?
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
did the priest get 5 years for sending the killer to south America?
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
colt45 -- Please stay on topic.
-
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
Well if accused Z cannot be proved to have played any role in the killing of Jew X or Gypsy Y, either by personally killing that victim, or having been part of group that actively killed a number of Jews or Gypsies including X and/or Y, eg a firing squad or unit operating a gas chamber, or having ordered the killing of X and/or Y, or a group of victims including X and/or Y, then accused Z cannot reasonably be held guilty of the murder of X or Y, or being an accessory to their murder.
Except in a politically motivated show trial.
For a person to be reasonably held guilty of being an accessory to murder, there has to be a direct connection between the actions of that person and the actions of the person who actually committed the murder. In the case of Eichmann, there was such a direct connection; he organised the transport of Jews to places where many of them would be killed, in the full knowledge that such killings would be perpetrated.
In the case of Demjanjuk, the situation is less clear, since nobody knows what he actually did at Sobibor. If his role was to do guard duty at the main gate, then his actions had no direct connection with the actions of those who actually carried out the killings.
In the case of Groening, his actions at Auschwitz are known, and they can be shown to have had no direct connection to the killing process, by the following practical examples.
Let us assume that a group of Jews arrives at Auschwitz, their money is confiscated, and they are all assigned to labour (that actually did happen with quite a few transports). The confiscated money is given to Groening, who counts it, records it, and despatches it to Berlin.
A second group of Jews arrives at Auschwitz. Their money is confiscated, and then they are assessed as unfit for labour and are sent to the gas chambers. The confiscated money is given to Groening, who counts it, records it, and despatches it to Berlin.
In both cases, the actions of Groening are the same. But do those actions have any connection to the process whereby the first group is selected for labour and the second group selected for killing? Do his actions play any role at all in the decision whether to kill a particular group of Jews or not to kill them?
The obvious answer is that they do not. His actions are the same regardless of whether an arriving group of Jews is killed or not killed, a decision that is not made by Groening.
In fact, even if none of the arriving Jews were killed but were assigned to labour, Groening's actions would have remained the same.
Conversely, even if nobody had performed the action of counting the money and despatching it to Berlin, that would have had no effect on the killings whatsoever.
Accordingly, there is no causal relationship between his actions and the killings of the Jews, so therefore he cannot reasonably be held to be an accessory to murder, although he may well be guilty of other illegal acts such as receiving stolen goods.
Except in a politically motivated show trial.
For a person to be reasonably held guilty of being an accessory to murder, there has to be a direct connection between the actions of that person and the actions of the person who actually committed the murder. In the case of Eichmann, there was such a direct connection; he organised the transport of Jews to places where many of them would be killed, in the full knowledge that such killings would be perpetrated.
In the case of Demjanjuk, the situation is less clear, since nobody knows what he actually did at Sobibor. If his role was to do guard duty at the main gate, then his actions had no direct connection with the actions of those who actually carried out the killings.
In the case of Groening, his actions at Auschwitz are known, and they can be shown to have had no direct connection to the killing process, by the following practical examples.
Let us assume that a group of Jews arrives at Auschwitz, their money is confiscated, and they are all assigned to labour (that actually did happen with quite a few transports). The confiscated money is given to Groening, who counts it, records it, and despatches it to Berlin.
A second group of Jews arrives at Auschwitz. Their money is confiscated, and then they are assessed as unfit for labour and are sent to the gas chambers. The confiscated money is given to Groening, who counts it, records it, and despatches it to Berlin.
In both cases, the actions of Groening are the same. But do those actions have any connection to the process whereby the first group is selected for labour and the second group selected for killing? Do his actions play any role at all in the decision whether to kill a particular group of Jews or not to kill them?
The obvious answer is that they do not. His actions are the same regardless of whether an arriving group of Jews is killed or not killed, a decision that is not made by Groening.
In fact, even if none of the arriving Jews were killed but were assigned to labour, Groening's actions would have remained the same.
Conversely, even if nobody had performed the action of counting the money and despatching it to Berlin, that would have had no effect on the killings whatsoever.
Accordingly, there is no causal relationship between his actions and the killings of the Jews, so therefore he cannot reasonably be held to be an accessory to murder, although he may well be guilty of other illegal acts such as receiving stolen goods.
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
I suppose these, popular in the Western world legal doctrines might be relevant:
joint enterprise - participants in a criminal enterprise are criminally liable for all that results from that enterprise,
felony murder - participants in a felony are criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony.
joint enterprise - participants in a criminal enterprise are criminally liable for all that results from that enterprise,
felony murder - participants in a felony are criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony.
-
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
The problem is that legal doctrines applying to illegal actions by individuals acting in concert against the law of the land cannot easily be applied to actions of a sovereign government through its servants.
The concept of a "criminal enterprise" describes a group of individuals getting together and voluntarily agreeing among themselves to carry out an act against the law. That is quite different from servants of a sovereign government, eg members of a military or police force, being ordered by that government to carry out actions that would be criminal if carried out by an individual acting on his own, without having been ordered to by the government.
As for the concept of "felony", it is again difficult to apply it to the actions of a sovereign government, which is the body that makes the law and thus decides which acts are felonies and which are not.
The only reason why the killing of Jews by servants of the German Government was criminal is that that Government had not promulgated any law that sanctioned such killings. That is, if the German Government had proclaimed a law making it illegal to be a member of the Jewish race, and prescribing the death penalty as the punishment for the infraction of that law, then the killings of Jews at Auschwitz would have been in accordance with the German law and hence not criminal.
Such a law is not in itself impossible. In our own day democratic governments have promulgated laws making it illegal to be a member of certain groups, eg groups declared by those governments to be terrorist, and have set penalties for the infraction of those laws.
The concept of a "criminal enterprise" describes a group of individuals getting together and voluntarily agreeing among themselves to carry out an act against the law. That is quite different from servants of a sovereign government, eg members of a military or police force, being ordered by that government to carry out actions that would be criminal if carried out by an individual acting on his own, without having been ordered to by the government.
As for the concept of "felony", it is again difficult to apply it to the actions of a sovereign government, which is the body that makes the law and thus decides which acts are felonies and which are not.
The only reason why the killing of Jews by servants of the German Government was criminal is that that Government had not promulgated any law that sanctioned such killings. That is, if the German Government had proclaimed a law making it illegal to be a member of the Jewish race, and prescribing the death penalty as the punishment for the infraction of that law, then the killings of Jews at Auschwitz would have been in accordance with the German law and hence not criminal.
Such a law is not in itself impossible. In our own day democratic governments have promulgated laws making it illegal to be a member of certain groups, eg groups declared by those governments to be terrorist, and have set penalties for the infraction of those laws.
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
Well, Groening himself didn´t commit the theft, so which crime/illegal act would be he guilty?michael mills wrote:[...]
In the case of Groening, his actions at Auschwitz are known, and they can be shown to have had no direct connection to the killing process, by the following practical examples.
[...] so therefore he cannot reasonably be held to be an accessory to murder, although he may well be guilty of other illegal acts such as receiving stolen goods.
A important thing in "theft" is the personal gain or the attempt of personal gain for oneself. But as he did fullfil his job only,counted the goods and forwarded them one can hardly claim that he did enrich himself in this act.
@wm: I doubt that a German court cares about foreign laws.
What says the German law about "assessory (of murder)":
"§ 27
Beihilfe
(1) Als Gehilfe wird bestraft, wer vorsätzlich einem anderen zu dessen vorsätzlich begangener rechtswidriger Tat Hilfe geleistet hat.[...]".
Translation:
§ 27 Assessory
1) As assistent willl be punished who deliberately gives aid to a person to his deliberately comitted unlawfull action.
I don´t believe that an SS man did deliberately act when he did fullfil his task to which he was forced by his oath and an order of a superior.
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
Auschwitz survivor Eva Kor's, one of the victims of Josef Mengele's twin experiments shakes the hand of SS guard Oskar Groening at his trial in Germany:
-
- Member
- Posts: 405
- Joined: 19 Oct 2011, 23:13
-
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
The outcome of this trial is no surprise.
As I wrote earlier, it was a show trial undertaken for the political purpose of demonstrating that the German Government and people are not "soft on Nazi criminals". That political imperative required that Groening be convicted for "complicity in the murder of 300,000 persons", no matter how ridiculous that charge is.
Now the Zuroffs and Cesaranis can indulge in an orgy of self-congratulation, after which we can all go home, including quite possibly Groening himself.
As I wrote earlier, it was a show trial undertaken for the political purpose of demonstrating that the German Government and people are not "soft on Nazi criminals". That political imperative required that Groening be convicted for "complicity in the murder of 300,000 persons", no matter how ridiculous that charge is.
Now the Zuroffs and Cesaranis can indulge in an orgy of self-congratulation, after which we can all go home, including quite possibly Groening himself.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
Michael – You wrote (at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1944173):
The development of German law in the Third Reich ( expert testimony of Professor Jahrreiss concerning the development of German law, in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10. Vol. 3: United States of America v. Josef Altstoettler, et al. (Case 3: 'Justice Case'). US Government Printing Office, District of Columbia: 1950. pp. 252-284), available online right here in the forum at
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=70906
You are mistaken. Take a look at The German Criminal Code (online and in English at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/engli ... _stgb.html ), which has no such limitations:Well if accused Z cannot be proved to have played any role in the killing of Jew X or Gypsy Y, either by personally killing that victim, or having been part of group that actively killed a number of Jews or Gypsies including X and/or Y, eg a firing squad or unit operating a gas chamber, or having ordered the killing of X and/or Y, or a group of victims including X and/or Y, then accused Z cannot reasonably be held guilty of the murder of X or Y, or being an accessory to their murder.
You also wrote (at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1956490):THIRD TITLE
PRINCIPALS AND SECONDARY PARTICIPANTS
Section 25
Principals
(1) Any person who commits the offence himself or through another shall be liable as a principal.
(2) If more than one person commit the offence jointly, each shall be liable as a principal (joint principals).
Section 26
Abetting
Any person who intentionally induces another to intentionally commit an unlawful act (abettor) shall be liable to be sentenced as if he were a principal.
Section 27
Aiding
(1) Any person who intentionally assists another in the intentional commission of an unlawful act shall be convicted and sentenced as an aider.
(2) The sentence for the aider shall be based on the penalty for a principal. It shall be mitigated pursuant to section 49(1).
* * * * *
Section 29
Separate criminal liability of the accomplice
Each accomplice shall be liable according to the measure of his own guilt and irrespective of the guilt of the others.
Section 30
Conspiracy
(1) A person who attempts to induce another to commit a felony or abet another to commit a felony shall be liable according to the provisions governing attempted felonies. The sentence shall be mitigated pursuant to section 49 (1). Section 23 (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis.
(2) A person who declares his willingness or who accepts the offer of another or who agrees with another to commit or abet the commission of a felony shall be liable under the same terms.
The problem is that legal doctrines applying to illegal actions by individuals acting in concert against the law of the land cannot easily be applied to actions of a sovereign government through its servants.
This is also incorrect. When the act is a violation of international customary law or a treaty, domestic law is subordinated. See the colloquy at:The concept of a "criminal enterprise" describes a group of individuals getting together and voluntarily agreeing among themselves to carry out an act against the law. That is quite different from servants of a sovereign government, eg members of a military or police force, being ordered by that government to carry out actions that would be criminal if carried out by an individual acting on his own, without having been ordered to by the government.
The development of German law in the Third Reich ( expert testimony of Professor Jahrreiss concerning the development of German law, in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10. Vol. 3: United States of America v. Josef Altstoettler, et al. (Case 3: 'Justice Case'). US Government Printing Office, District of Columbia: 1950. pp. 252-284), available online right here in the forum at
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=70906
-
- Member
- Posts: 745
- Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 05:26
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
So did the Frankfurt Court err when they acquitted the following in the various Auschwitz trials?
Johann Schobert
Hans Nierzwicki
Gerhard Neubert
Wilhelm Breitwieser
Are there legal distinctions between Oskar Groining and those 4 former defendants?
Was Groening kept in detention during the trial? Is it likely he will serve anytime at all?
If not, what was the point of the trial - other than the obvious one of a taxpayer funded pageant: the 21st century equivalent of Oberammergau?
And of course, justification for the small army of rent seekers who run the various war crimes research institutes, historians, lawyers etc who fear being tossed out of a cosy placement.
Johann Schobert
Hans Nierzwicki
Gerhard Neubert
Wilhelm Breitwieser
Are there legal distinctions between Oskar Groining and those 4 former defendants?
Was Groening kept in detention during the trial? Is it likely he will serve anytime at all?
If not, what was the point of the trial - other than the obvious one of a taxpayer funded pageant: the 21st century equivalent of Oberammergau?
And of course, justification for the small army of rent seekers who run the various war crimes research institutes, historians, lawyers etc who fear being tossed out of a cosy placement.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
little grey rabbit -- You asked (at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1956510):
http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Home/home_node.html
Please let us know how they respond.
You also asked:
For an official answer you might ask the Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz atSo did the Frankfurt Court err when they acquitted the following in the various Auschwitz trials?
Johann Schobert
Hans Nierzwicki
Gerhard Neubert
Wilhelm Breitwieser
Are there legal distinctions between Oskar Groining and those 4 former defendants?
http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Home/home_node.html
Please let us know how they respond.
You also asked:
Have you let the German government know how concerned you (as a foreigner) are about their expenditures?If not, what was the point of the trial - other than the obvious one of a taxpayer funded pageant
Re: Auschwitz guard admits 'moral guilt'.
I doubt that this § was keeped in mind and taken into account:
"(1) Any person who INTENTIONALLY assists another in the intentional commission of an unlawful act shall be convicted and sentenced as an aider."
Gröning mutliple times tried to leave the camp by applying a transfer to the front which his superiors didn´t allow. Can´t recognise a intention in his deeds in the camp therefore.
I wonder that I didn´t here about refusal to obey orders in the last years in other armies?
"(1) Any person who INTENTIONALLY assists another in the intentional commission of an unlawful act shall be convicted and sentenced as an aider."
Gröning mutliple times tried to leave the camp by applying a transfer to the front which his superiors didn´t allow. Can´t recognise a intention in his deeds in the camp therefore.
I wonder that I didn´t here about refusal to obey orders in the last years in other armies?