Bookkeeper Of Auschwitz
Oskar Groening the 94 year old SS officer known as the "Bookkeeper of Auschwitz" - was found guilty of aiding and abetting the murders of 300,000 by a court in Lueneburg, northern Germany.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Phew, just in time too...
You could say he had a heil of a time explaining it to the court... he did Nazi it coming.
...Sorry.
I've heard this story before, and I think this conviction is completely unnecessary. He was in the military under orders and had no role in the Holocaust. He was one man who couldn't make any difference. It's like if America convicted Japanese war veterans involved in Pearl Harbour. It was a time of WAR, and unlike those pilots, Oskar never took part in the Holocaust. This conviction is pointless.
All the Nazi men were in the military under order, that does not justify their actions. It depends on what he did, and if he was convicted after all this time, I'm sure he had played a vicious part.
I do agree that his conviction his unnecessary, though. He's an old man and has probably already suffered enough. His life is just about over already, and he clearly can't do anything on his own anymore. He should just be taken to a nursing home and be guarded there.
EDIT: Here's the part saying he's guilty:
I find it comforting that he's sincerely regretting it, but that doesn't make it any less bad. I still think the old man shouldn't be sentenced, his being in itself is suffering, both internal suffering over what he'd taken part of and external, physical suffering of old age.
I guess 4 years is a fair time for that crime. Still... for God's sake, he's on the verge of dying anyway. How can he even be a threat to society if he can barely walk?
It seems to me his punishment is a bit much for what he actually did. It's just...it just seems like something he was ordered to do, so he did. Sent the dead peoples money to Berlin. I can't really explain it. I just feel that a home confinement ruling would have sufficed.
I think it was less about him and more proving a point that crimes against humanity (even aiding and abetting) will be punished, regardless of circumstances.
He knew exactly what he was doing and what ideology he was supporting, and if he was in that job, he clearly supported it. He admitted to, and that combined with his cooperating with mass genocide is enough to arrest a person. They did this to a lot of Nazis in the past. They also executed some.
I understand, but using a human being who is still breathing, feeling and clearly suffering by simply existing as a way to prove a point doesn't have to include throwing him in a cell. I think they should show some compassion for him because of his old age. They can simply throw him in a nursing home and have the security guard make sure he doesn't escape, maybe? It's not like he'll choke the social workers with a catheter and run off to commit another murdering spree... I beyt he's even struggling in getting out of bed and remembering to take medication. I think that giving an old man the conditions of jail is not a very humane thing to do, he already clearly rehabilitated and they just prolonged his suffering by taking an extra unnecessary precaution.
I guess that if the conditions in the jail are good, then it's ok. But I doubt they will be. Maybe they'll give him someone to give him special care in the jail and everything will be alright, I hope so.
I'm aware. It's just....I don't know. Seems to me 4 years' in prison is still a bit much on the old man. He clearly doesn't look back on Auschwitz as "good ole' days with the reich." I can't really explain it. I feel conflicted about it.
It is too much, but only because he's old and incapable. If he was a little younger, and could withstand four years in prison condition, he would have to do the time.
I understand you, I also feel conflicted about putting someone who is clearly regretting it in prison, but we never know what someone actually thinks... or feels. And as BigBlindMax said, it's more as a statement than an actual "revenge". The only thing that bothers me is that he's so old and probably incapable of being in prison for four years.
I don't think he's going to come back from that prison
Me neither.
I could just imagine, one day being ninety one being put on trial for the things i did in combat. Fuck THAT.
He wasn't in combat, he was a bookkeeper who knew exactly what he was doing.
He was a soldier following orders. If people think punishing some old guy is going to solve anything that happened in the past, it won't. Nothing can change what happened.
Quite true, but like I said above, it isn't about punishment, it's about making a point.
Also according to the Nuremburg precedent, 'following orders' doesn't cut it as a defense when it comes to war crimes.
What point needs to be made, it happened over half a decade ago.
What was he supposed to do, exactly? Trying to stop the executions would have gotten him imprisoned or in the gas chamber. I get that what happened was terrible, but convicting someone who had no say in the matter and was only a witness doesn't solve anything
He was transferred to a front line unit and captured by the British.
It's not like he had much of a choice. They probably would have put him in the gas chamber if he tried to do anything about it. I think expecting someone to just throw away their life on a suicide mission is more than a bit harsh.
Heil + Hell = Too differently pronounced to make a pun.
Mein bad.
Better?
Not exactly. Himmler stated that those who wished to opt out of duties in these camps could be transfered to other duties without any adverse action. This happened very rarely, though, as the SS consisted of some of the most loyal (and by extension, fanatical) to the Idea of the Third Reich.
Yes.
And Oska did transfer. He and his unit were captured on the front lines. And so what if the SS officers were loyal? Isn't that what you'd want a soldier to be. And here's another thing; do you really think the U.S hasn't committed its share of atrocities? What if, years from now, veterans are prosecuted simply for being on what people in that time would consider the wrong side?
Simply being at Auschwitz doesn't make a person responsible for the Holocaust. He couldn't have stopped anyone from dying.
You mean over half a century, right?
There's a big difference between being on the wrong side and aiding/abetting the worst genocide in the history of mankind.
He assisted in hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children's executions. He wasn't just on the wrong side, but when he could be transferred to a position less genocidal, he refused. He thought he was doing the right thing by helping murder millions. He apologizes now but he still committed those crimes.
I'm kind of mixed on this, he did do those things but it's been a long time and he's over 90 now. I read in an article that said he's going to be examined to see if he's healthy enough to go to prison or not but why 4 years in jail and not community service or something he can do instead of sitting in prison waiting to die? Is it really going to do any good?
In a perfect world, community service would be a perfect sentence. If he's up for it, they could put him on the school circuit, educate the young, so they don't make the mistakes of their elders.
Unfortunately, such a light sentence would set a precedent. In the future, when other CAH cases are being tried, attorneys could use leniency in this case to argue for reduced sentences for their clients.
DISCLAIMER : I don't know the intricacies of European law. If they don't use legal precedent to decide criminal cases, then disregard what I said.
Yup.
I don't know that much about European law either.
He wasn't helping simply by being there. Wether or not he was there would have had no change to the lives lost. Please elaborate on when he refused to transfer.
He was a Bookkeeper or so I assume. He helped transfer and maintain prisoners and those who would die each day and record it. True that if he was there or not nothing would have changed, however, he was there and he did assist in the executions...That's a crime. He could have easily transferred to a different position, one where he wouldn't be in direct association with Auschwitz. Instead of transferring when he could have, he stayed in the position.
What I'm trying to say here is that he committed crimes, he was in directed association with the execution of hundreds of thousands of innocent people...He deserves punishment for that. If we wasn't there, would it still have happened? Yes, someone would've taken his place, but he was there and he helped in these crimes therefore he deserves punishment.
He did try to transfer, and he was denied the first time. What makes you think he actually wanted to stay at Auschwitz?
I made that assumption as many of the Nazis working in the camps were some of the most loyal and most dedicated to the values that was taught by Nazism. However, you know what they say about assumptions, so my mistake.
Still, as he was still apart of the process, he should be tried for the crimes of which he was in direct association with, as he was.
He wasn't a witness, he was integrated with the Nazi movement and ideology. He deserves confinement. Keep in mind that four years is nothing compared to the fact that most Nazis were executed or got a life sentence.
And don't tell me he didn't have a choice, he clearly did. He may have had to help the Nazi movement to an extent, but he is guilty of willingly doing it. If you read the article, you would see that he confessed to doing it willingly.
The only reason he deserves to be excused (not entirely) is his old age and suffering.
Again, what's the point to this conviction? He knows his mistakes now, the Nazi ideology has no more chance of rising again than any other extremist party, so why?
Look at it this way: we put people in prison to keep the public safe, but wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to have prisons at all? This is one of those times where nothing can be gained by putting a man in jail. The key to making a more peaceful world is, in my opinion, forgiveness.
By your logic, a person that makes a confession and regrets his actions is free of the legal consequence. It's not like that (at least in the legal sense). A person pays the price his actions costed, even if they were only affiliated with it and not a major part of it. He's paying a very small (relatively) price for a very small (again, relatively) crime. But this is an exception; he's old and already suffering.
We don't always do it to keep the public safe, it sometimes is just a message to those who wrong humanity rather than a practical precaution. Forgiveness doesn't come into play here, rather mercy. Mercy for an old man who has come of age to die, and who will most likely not come out of prison alive under its conditions.
you actually believe Himmler? He was into some weird shit man, you should research his SS castle.