Discussion
  • Read More
    deanmartinsrectalpolyps2Brendan O'Connor
    1/18/16 8:04pm

    It’s very difficult to be against the death penalty when considering the cases against these murderous bloodsuckers. Its very hard not to wish for a high gallows. And a short rope.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      You might be wrong.deanmartinsrectalpolyps2
      1/18/16 8:20pm

      No it isn’t, because that lowers yourself to their level.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TrianglekittyYou might be wrong.
      1/18/16 8:51pm

      I don’t think wanting a confirmed murderer dead is anywhere near the same level as participating in a genocide against innocents. But then I always roll my eyes when this cliche comes up in movies or shows.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    nocturnalkittyBrendan O'Connor
    1/18/16 7:53pm

    Um... They are going to charge a 95 year old former nazi orderly who currently has dementia with the deaths of 3,681 people? I mean nazis were horrible no doubt, but... I mean.... Really?!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      tooflyforthewifinocturnalkitty
      1/18/16 8:09pm

      Yes, really. He was a medical professional who watched thousands of men, women and children march into shower rooms. Promised a shower, they were then gassed with Zyklon B and their bodies burned in a giant oven. “No doubt” Nazis were horrible. That he lived that much longer than his victims is a crime against humanity.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      nice_marmotnocturnalkitty
      1/18/16 8:27pm

      He was a member of the SS (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzsta…). Membership in the SS was restricted to the most committed Nazi ideologues, and until late in the war all concentration camp guards and medical personnel were SS (or Gestapo, etc.), one branch of which was given responsibility for carrying out the “Final Solution.” Over a million people were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau alone.

      So, yeah, really.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    KatieKaBoom2284Brendan O'Connor
    1/18/16 7:44pm

    I question the decision to prosecute low level Nazi soldiers. They were following orders that were demanded by their commanding officers. I realize the process of extermination camps is probably one of the worst war atrocities there is, but are their actions any different than our own soldiers who kill on command? They couldn't just up and leave their post and defect. I mean, I'm sure they could, but we all know that isn't realistic. They were just doing what they were indoctrinated to do. Unless there's an argument I'm not thinking of.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Infrequently Vile - Directed by Wes AndersonKatieKaBoom2284
      1/18/16 7:55pm

      It has been pretty well documented that refusing to participate in atrocities wouldn’t get you shot. You simply got transfered and your military career derailed.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Yog-Sothoth is the GateKatieKaBoom2284
      1/18/16 8:06pm

      but are their actions any different than our own soldiers who kill on command?

      Yes. Absolutely yes. How is this even a question?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Stephen Dowling BottsBrendan O'Connor
    1/18/16 7:34pm

    Ugh. Why could they not have really taken care of this 50 years ago, when people were still mentally able to assist in their own defense?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      JaywilStephen Dowling Botts
      1/18/16 7:42pm

      Because 50 years ago they did not have the resources to track him down. This is no only about Jews. It’s a message to any nationality that wishes to commit genocide, that it will never be forgotten, and those who perpetrate or are involved in the crime will ultimately pay. Atrocities are wrong, even if you were “just following orders”.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ListerineyJaywil
      1/18/16 7:48pm

      Oh fuck off your high horse. Where are the prosecutions for Abu Gharib or GITMO? The people who committed those crimes aren’t demented and are walking around free.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    GregoireBrendan O'Connor
    1/18/16 7:37pm

    Prosecutors say Hubert Zafke, 95, was an SS medical orderly at Auschwitz from October 1943 to January 1944, and an accessory to murder.

    How do you properly punish a man with dementia who’s 95 years old? I realize this is pretty much a show trial to set things morally straight, but what ultimately is the ideal end result? Couldn’t we just show him the contents of the Lost Ark and be done with it?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ListerineyGregoire
      1/18/16 7:46pm

      Sorry,but no. If y0u want to be morally straight, you’re not going after people who are demented.Shit like this only gives the holocaust deniers ammo.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BrianGriffinGregoire
      1/18/16 7:47pm

      Also, he was following orders.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    WhySoCiceroBrendan O'Connor
    1/18/16 7:47pm

    I...really don’t need to put a 95 year old geezer in jail to understand that the Holocaust was bad.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      flightlevel270WhySoCicero
      1/18/16 8:01pm

      90 years old ok? No? how bout 85? no? 75 maybe? What if you knew he had another 10 years to live? What difference does it make how old he is? His advanced age just means he got away with genocide for longer than someone in his role that was brought to justice in 1970...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Dinosaurs and Nachos, girlfriend!WhySoCicero
      1/18/16 10:13pm

      I....really don’t think his trial is about your personal growth in understanding atrocities.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Street SweeperBrendan O'Connor
    1/18/16 7:36pm

    If he was an orderly from 10/43-01/44 why does the indictment cover 8/44-9/44?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      XrdsAlumStreet Sweeper
      1/18/16 7:49pm

      The wording of the original Gawker article is a little confusing due to the parenthetical reference to Anne Frank. From the BBC article it seems that he served in another area of the camp as a non-homicidal medical orderly for the first period (when Anne Frank arrived) and then was later transferred to homicide-related medical orderly duty later on.

      He might have plausible deniability for what was going on during the first tour of duty (it was a huge camp with non-extermination components) but apparently not for the second period.

      As to why only one month is covered, maybe those are all the records they found. Not that more is necessary, since accessory to murder for 3,681 people makes it clear to other participants in genocide, past and future, that the statute of limitations on this barbarism never runs out.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Street SweeperXrdsAlum
      1/18/16 8:08pm

      Thanks. I still find the wording here incredibly confusing. Either I'm an idiot, or Gawker needs a copy-editor.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Book AkiBrendan O'Connor
    1/18/16 7:34pm

    I heard he accepted Iron Cross and Blue Shield and Seigna.

    But in all seriousness, I think he also violated HeilPPA and is suspected of template billing CPT 8814

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      HeyEinstein!Book Aki
      1/18/16 11:23pm

      Reminds me of an old joke, the punchline of which goes something like: “Und this time, I varn you: no more Mister Nice Guy!”

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ottermannBrendan O'Connor
    1/19/16 8:19am

    I have issues with this prosecution.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s long overdue, but that’s exactly the problem I have with it.

    At this point, the defendant is 95 and suffers from dementia. He most likely has no idea what’s happening around him and almost certainly does not remember the events of 70 years ago. So, is this justice, or is it revenge?

    If you say justice, I ask, how? How is jailing a 95 year old who has no idea about what’s going on around him in any way justice for the events he helped with 70 years ago? It’s not. It’s the actions of a government who now needs to act because they refused to for so long.

    Think about it. Did the government just now find out who this man was and all the details of his past? No. They did not. They have known about his past for...oh....70 years. And, he hasn’t been in hiding for the last 70 years.

    What happened is, the government sat on their hands and did nothing. They could have prosecuted him back in the late 40's or early 50's. He would have served his time, and justice would have been served.

    Now, they are looking at sending a 95 year old to prison for 4 years. A sentence he will not survive. He probably won’t survive the trial.

    And the governments justification for putting him on trial?

    “aware of the purpose of the Birkenau camp as an extermination camp. Given his awareness, the accused lent support to the organisation of the camp and was thereby both involved in and advanced the extermination,”

    He isn’t being accused of killing anyone. They are prosecuting him because he was aware of what was going on. Ok. Fair enough. But what about the government who has been aware of this mans role in the war for the last 70 years? If he’s guilty because he was aware of what was going on, isn’t the government just as guilty because they were aware of who he was for so long but refused to do anything about it?

    At this point in the mans life, this isn’t justice. It’s revenge. No amount of explaining will make him understand why he’s being punished, if he even realizes that he’s being punished anyway.

    I’m not saying they should just let him go free. But is prison a punishment if you don’t know you’re in prison?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max CherryBrendan O'Connor
      1/18/16 9:46pm

      Just skip the trial and let him play the “knockout game” with a group of teenagers in Chicago. At 95, that ought to finish him off.

      Reply
      <