88 year old ex-SS soldier charged with 3 wartime murders

If you let this guy go for what he did, what is now considered a crime under international and national law, then when do you stop letting people go? Aren't you basically saying- there is a statute of limitations on murder? When does the time run out to prosecute?

Then what do you excuse and let go?

Sorry, but no. You do the crime, you do the time. He's enjoyed borrowed time for decades that a lot of folks didn't get. Sorry, but he goes down for this.
 
This thread ... is hysterical. And at the same time, very sad - sad in how some people try to dismiss the darkest chapter of human history so.
 
I must say I am surprised at how much some folks really do not know about WW2. The tired and old excuse of trying to seperate the Waffen-SS from the Totenkopfverbande and Einsatzgruppen is amazing.

If those folks stating that in this thread really understood that war they would know the Waffen SS was just as bad as the Einsatzgruppen units were.

Listed below are just some of the war crimes committed by the Waffen SS. The very ones you are trying to say were just regular Joes in a black uniform. :roll:

THE TULLE MURDERS (Near Limoges, Central France, June 9, 1944)
ASCQ (Near Lille, April 2, 1944)

FRAYSSINET (Near Tulle, Central France, May 21, 1944)

In the small village of Frayssinet le Gelat south of Tulle, between Gourdon and Fumel, an SS Rifle company of the 2 Panzer Division 'Das Reich' stopped for a 'coffee' break. Believing that one of their officers had been shot by members of the French underground, fifteen hostages were taken and executed. These hostages were all young males from one child families. This, in the twisted minds of the SS, was to prevent any further family line of descent.

I gave this one some quick details because it highlights just how sick in the head these fuckers really were. The whole organization from Himmler on down to the lowliest private in the Das Reich division were hardcore nazis, and believed the shit their leaders spewed out.

ANY member of the SS, German SS units and not foreign units, HAD to prove their German heritage back, IIRC, 3 or 4 generations and had to meet certain political and physical criteria to join. So trying to say the Waffen SS is any less evil than the Einsatzgruppen and Totenkopfverbande is nonsense.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled list of Waffen SS atrocities.


MALMÉDY MASSACRE (December 17, 1944)
STAVELOT December 18, the day after the massacre at Malmédy
WERETH (December 17, 1944)
NORMANDY MASSACRES (June, 1944) A little note, the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitler Jugend was nicknamed by the Allies as the murder division, for good reasons.
LE PARADIS (Pas-de-Calais, May 26, 1940)
WORMHOUDT ATROCITY (Pas-de-Calais, May 27/28 , 1940)
ORADOUR-SUR-GLANE (Central France, June 10, 1944)
SAULX VALLEY (August 29, 1944)
DISTOMO (June 10, 1944)
DE WOESTE HOEVE (March 6, 1945)
WARSAW GHETTO MASSACRE (April 19 to May 16, 1943)
RATOMSKAYA (August 28, 1941)
RUDA, CORNJI, DORFER, OTOK, and DALNJI (March 27, 1944)
SKIATAWA (Sunday November 30, 1941) Note, executions done by Latvian Waffen SS volunteer unit
VIA RASELLA (Rome, March 23, 1944)
SANT' ANNA MASSACRE (August 12, 1944)
BARDINE SAN TERENZO (August 20, 1944)
MARZABOTTO (September 29 to October 1st, 1944)
BOVES ATROCITY (September 17, 1944) Note, committed by Joachim Pieper, of Malmedy fame. Seems this gent just loved to kill
AVASINIS KILLINGS (May 2, 1945)

And remember, this is a short list of the Waffen SS atrocities, not the Einsatzgruppen. So before defending those sons of bitches, do some research and see just how evil they really were.

OT: If the man had been convicted in a trial in 1949, then fled to escape justice, he should have been repatriated to Holland. If Germany does the right thing and finds this SOB guilty, execution is what he deserves, not forgiveness.



Cheers, Thor
 
Thorgrimm said:
I must say I am surprised at how much some folks really do not know about WW2. The tired and old excuse of trying to seperate the Waffen-SS from the Totenkopfverbande and Einsatzgruppen is amazing.

If those folks stating that in this thread really understood that war they would know the Waffen SS was just as bad as the Einsatzgruppen units were.

Listed below are just some of the war crimes committed by the Waffen SS. The very ones you are trying to say were just regular Joes in a black uniform. :roll:
Click to expand...
Actualy regarding that the W-SS was not worse or better compared to the usual Wehrmacht units that have been found guilty for crimes in the war.

Most of the members in the W-SS even if usualy with a questionable background have been not much different to the usual German soldier in the field. Propaganda and indoctrination have been present in all forces of the German military at that time. Who swallowed that propaganda now and who not is a question regarding the individuals. Of course the organisation of the SS as whole should be seen as one of the worst parts in the war. But by thinking about other units like for example the NKVD the W-SS was more similar to them at least when it comes to the fighting the NKVD was for example known for their work in the russian Gulags (similar to concentration camps). But the NKVD has also seen much operations in the war as clear fighting unit many times enough together with naval forces or with special operations in mind.

One should remember that the W-SS contained till the end of the war more then 800.000 members (some sources say it goes up to 1 Million) which contained members for all parts of europe like east european states to the baltic and nordic nations even france, see:

33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French)
14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian)

Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts

probably some of those units had political motivations as they feelt close to the nazi party and the German regime. But many of them also seen eventualy the Sovietunion or even just the British forces (many french voluntairs joined the Germans to fight the Brits) as the biger threat. Others eventualy got simply conscripted.

I think its not good to see only the extreme side. The organisation for it self was of course not a good one but one should always keep the individuals in mind and take a look on the units and what they did.
 
This thread isn't dead yet?


apocalypse_now_xl_03.jpg


"Shit... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500. "
 
Hey, why won't they persecute the people that bombed Dresden and the people that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
 
Cause we won.

The Atomic bombings are a poor example thou, better ones would be the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden. The Atomic bombings were a calculated effort to save lives by ending the war as quick as possible. "And scare the shit out of everyone who opposes us."


Not so much about the fire bombings.

Or the Japanese-American internment camps during 1942.

Or many other activities that are morally debatable.

But it's okay because they are the enemies of our social and political order. They Aren't real people like us. :roll:
 
welsh said:
If you let this guy go for what he did, what is now considered a crime under international and national law, then when do you stop letting people go?
Click to expand...
What is now considered a crime is irrelevant. You can't apply laws retroactively.

welsh said:
Sorry, but no. You do the crime, you do the time. He's enjoyed borrowed time for decades that a lot of folks didn't get. Sorry, but he goes down for this.
Click to expand...
Do the crime basing on what law? What was the stance of the international law on reprisal attacks against civilians before the fourth Geneva convention of 1949?
 
Sorrow said:
welsh said:
If you let this guy go for what he did, what is now considered a crime under international and national law, then when do you stop letting people go?
Click to expand...
What is now considered a crime is irrelevant. You can't apply laws retroactively.
Click to expand...

This is a good point Sorrow. And it raises an issue that had to be addressed by the Nuremburg tribunals before the trials of the Nazi war criminals.

Justice Jackson, a Supreme Court judge, was one of the leading planners of the war trial and also the lead prosecutor. It was Jackson and the US position that there should be a trial and that the rule of law over war should be expanded. The Russians just wanted to shoot them, and the Brits were willing to go along either way.

Ok, its a good law that one is not supposed to be tried for a crime when the act that gives rise to that crime was not deemed criminal when the crime occurred.

With regard to the trials- this is one of the reasons why there was a reluctance to charge the Germans with crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against their own people. As if there is a difference between gassing German and Polish Jews.

However, one of the reasons for the trials after World War 2 was that similar trials after World War 1 were a joke. The most famous of these involved the sinking of passenger vessels by U-boats (which had no ability to take in survivors). A few prosecutions by national courts and, for the most part, the person was let off easy. But the thing is, there were rules of war and laws of war, including laws on the treatment of foreign citizens and of combatants. There was a law against the initiation of aggressive war.

As for the issues of "I was ordered to do it." What you suggest is that the sanction for failing to fulfill an order is treason, and perhaps subject to death. Maybe, but its a long held principle that you are not excused for murder merely because you were forced to commit murder by someone threatening your life. Is this fair? A debateable point. Certainly people have been killing other people because they feared the sanction of disobeying. But in short, your life is not worth the taking of anothers. In war time, a soldier is licensed by the state to kill on behalf of state policy. But if that policy is based on murder, than the policy is wrong and you get no excuse for following orders because you feared losing your own life.

You might say, "damn that sucks," - well, don't be a soldier folr a murderous state.

Note that this makes the legality of mercenaries a bit tricky. Normally, most states won't prosecute a crime that takes place in another state -little jurisdiction over the criminal act.


welsh said:
Sorry, but no. You do the crime, you do the time. He's enjoyed borrowed time for decades that a lot of folks didn't get. Sorry, but he goes down for this.
Click to expand...
Do the crime basing on what law? What was the stance of the international law on reprisal attacks against civilians before the fourth Geneva convention of 1949?[/quote]

Prior to the UN Convention, reprisals were one of those exceptions to international law that was often allowed and frequently abused. I have outlined his crimes above. Suffice it to say, if you are a murderer for a state, you go down. This gets tricky when fighting irregulars.

Since the UN Convention you have both Art 2(4) as well as the Right to Self-Defense, but otherwise, reprisals is dicey. Note these rules are pretty tight. The US had to justify its wars in Iraq (UN Security Council Resolutions) and Afghanistan (Self-Defense). Humanitarian Intervention- as when Tanzania removed Idi Amin in Uganda, is kind of dicey.

Oh, with regard to fire bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki- it would be hard to justify those bombings under current law of war. Indeed, use of nuclear weapons is generally considered illegal.
 
To sum it up, I think there are two ways to view this:

1. The point Sorrow made, about laws being applied retroactively. And with that, the fact that he's being charged now, 65 or so years later. Not saying he shouldn't go on trial, but most of the witnesses are now dead, reducing testimony to mostly second or third hand accounts of what happened. To be honest, it's very difficult to know what actually happened.

2. The fact that this might take precedence, media-wise and resource-wise, over other murder cases, committed more recently. Is he more guilty than a double-murderer today. Do we value victims' lives differently? Based on what, the motivation of their murder? That's borderline insulting.


And yeah, about the "I was ordered to do it". I would maybe kill someone under threat over being killed myself. I can't exclude this, but then again, Iv'e never been in such a situation. I think survival instinct takes over.

And even if he did out voluntarily, who's to say he didn't consider these people terrorists, and enemies? He didn't kill children here. He killed insurgents. Same thing happens in Iraq and Afghanistan today. What if (although extremely unlikely), in 65 years, these insurgents are considered martyrs and heroes of the resistance? Will we prosecute all the US Soldiers that participated in anti-insurgent operations?

It's very unlikely, and you could say "Bah! You can't compare Nazi Germany with the United States today!". That's easy for you to say. Maybe to him, back then, it wasn't much different. It's the Historian's fallacy. You can't expect him to be aware of the worldwide policies and actions of Nazi Germany as a whole, especially with current propaganda and the lack of today's mass media and Internet. And similarly, you can't know how people will view the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in 65 years.


Not to mention this opens up a lot of wounds, and it wouldn't surprise me if it causes a lot of other similar trials in other places. What I don't like about this is that it's a trial caused by passion and personal revenge, not by rational thought, and therefore, I can't support it.
 
I also find it odd how they make a big deal out of prosecuting these and punishing these old Nazis yet the guy who just killed a whole bunch of people or raped someone they barely get a wrist slap.
 
A big problem is no one in that courtroom will be unbiased. Not even the defense lawyer.
 
Because punishing this man under these circumstances forces people to look in the mirror, and they don't like what they see.

welsh said:
You might say, "damn that sucks," - well, don't be a soldier folr a murderous state.
Click to expand...

How fuckin' astute! As soon as a political force invades my territory and shoves fear and propaganda down my throat ill be sure not do what is in my interests of survival and work folr them. Because working folr them can be considered criminal 70 years from now by some organizations i cannot comprehend to exist.

Yeah it sucks. But still, can't we fucking start being "Right" somewhere? FOLR GOD SAKES!
 
fallout_fan said:
I also find it odd how they make a big deal out of prosecuting these and punishing these old Nazis yet the guy who just killed a whole bunch of people or raped someone they barely get a wrist slap.
Click to expand...
Who, exactly, is raping and killing people and is just getting a wrist slap, then?

Dopemine Cleric said:
How fuckin' astute! As soon as a political force invades my territory and shoves fear and propaganda down my throat ill be sure not do what is in my interests of survival and work folr them. Because working folr them can be considered criminal 70 years from now by some organizations i cannot comprehend to exist.

Yeah it sucks. But still, can't we fucking start being "Right" somewhere? FOLR GOD SAKES!
Click to expand...
How do you spell for 'folr' not once, but thrice?

Also, he's not being prosecuted because he was in the SS. There are lots of people in the SS who were never and will never be prosecuted. He's being prosecuted exactly because he was part of a deathsquad that killed civilians. He wasn't just a soldier for the wrong side, he was an active participant in what we now consider to be war crimes. These people weren't terrorist insurgents, in many cases they were harmless citizens who didn't sympathize with the Nazi regime.

Moreover, he was also prosecuted and found guilty right after the war, but managed to escape the country and evade his punishment. One could argue that if anything, he should've been extradited to the Netherlands and served his crime there.

However, what people seem to be forgetting is that he is being prosecuted. These are all things the judges will need to take into account, he is not being found guilty yet.
victor said:
2. The fact that this might take precedence, media-wise and resource-wise, over other murder cases, committed more recently. Is he more guilty than a double-murderer today. Do we value victims' lives differently? Based on what, the motivation of their murder? That's borderline insulting.
Click to expand...
Yet we already do that. We make a difference between sane and insane murderers, between murder and manslaughter and between race crimes and non-race crimes (or at least, Americans do the latter). Motivation already matters, up to a point.
 
You'd think most of the old SS guys would be dead by now. Still I am not sure I feel about it. I have no love for what the third reich did. But it was a different time, and I am sure there were others who did far worse and they got off the hook.

Still I suppose he will have to answer for the deaths he caused.

And in Nazi Germany, a soldier didn't always have the luxury to refuse an order. Some men took the high ground and took the bullets, others were just as human. But I suppose generations from now can judge the ethics. I suppose in time many will judge what soldiers do and will do in the many conflicts to come.
 
Dopemine- Ok, so I spelled for wrong because I typed fast on a crappy computer with sticky keys. Many apologies for offending your sensibilities. Didn't know you were so sensitive about spelling.

And to respond to some of the points above-

Yes, it is possible that if you are murdering insurgents than you could be tried for war cimes at a later time. If you are the one who drops naplam on villagers, or rapes little girls, or throws a grenade in a school room- and if you think you can excuse your actions because you are a "soldier" doing your duty- too bad. Patriotism is the last refuge of the rogue? Maybe. The alternative is to cloak all soldiers with immunity?

So lets say that one bunch of irregular Croats or Bosnians come into a Serbian town and rape, pillage and murder. You're a Serbian and you get pissed off, so you go to a Croat or Bosnian town and you rape, pillage and murder.

How does the crime of another justify your crimes? Is it because you're sensitive? Your feeling got hurt? Are you going to argue some kind of post-traumatic stress "made you do it." Or did you just become another blood thirsty fucker.

And yes, some bad people won't be persecuted and sometimes the bastards won't get persecuted because they are protected or because people don't care.

There are lots of bad people who deserve to be punished in Rwanda and Cambodia and Somalia and former Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka and lots of other places. Most won't be charged. Some won't ever be charged. There is a reason why the US won't commit to certain International Criminal Courts.

Is it fair? No, get over it.
 
maybe when the situations change and the former yugoslavian states will be stabile and economicaly healthy they can start to prosecute and search for criminals.

Issue with yugoslavia is though that in many parts of its former states there is no real attempt of dealing with the past by the public and autorities. Many people regardless if in Serbia, Crotatia or Bosnia see the actions which took place in the war as more or less correct. I think this will still cause a lot of conclict in the future. No one is yet ready to forgive the other side eventualy. It might take 50 or even more years with new generations, better education and more sensibility regarding past before anything might really change in a positive direction. But for the case this happens I am sure people will start to search for criminals and war mongers on their own ground. Or allow others to do it. And thats what is important. A respectfull handling with history.

We cant prosecute many of the war criminals who are comiting crimes now cause the cases in which those crimes happend are still somewhat to new. Iraq, Afganistan, Africa. In many of those places you still have war or war like situatoins and a lot of chaos. The Iraq gouvernement can complain about war crimes as much they want neither the US or Europe will move here much as if one likes it now or not they need many of those mercenaries as they are one of the bigest forces next to professional soldiers. If I remember right corporations like Black Water make almost 1/3 of the armed forces in the Iraq. But I could be wrong here its been some time I have read about it.

Anyway. I would not be surprised if we eventualy see in the future eventualy if the situation for the Iraq will change people search and convict for those who are doing crimes now but are not prosecuted.
 
Oh yeah, and now that you mention it, we should hunt down these monsters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Ohh wait, they are now leaders in the medical and technology fields. Killing them and disbanding the data received from the war crimes would fuck up the world economy.


Let me just say, that they must have had awesome resumes after the war. :lol: *kill me*

That PHD and "Science" data makes alot of difference in world political opinion doesn't it? So I guess to keep the status quo in line, FUCK THE SS SOLIDER!!

-Welsh, If the law isn't "Fair", then it should be burned to the ground.

But it's not like that has ever been. 2 systems of modern law are already bankrupt of morality.

Common Law = $$$

Civil Law = Kill anything that doesn't support the state's case.

American Common Law = $$$ and kill anything that doesn't support the state's case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top