-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
World War II war criminal emerges in Minnesota
- Thread starter Angelus Errare
- Start date
- Status
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
Wait... Formula?
Squirrel Killer
Member
Yes, he wants to ban infant formula and he says that people who have to supplement breast milk with formula or use formula entirely are genetically deficient and shouldn't have kids.
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
Wow. I'm afraid what other statements of his I'd find that stand out if I did a search.
Justice has to do with the safety of society and rehabilitation of the offender.
In cases of murder, we put people in prison for decades to life in prison depending on the circumstances. Others execute murderers. I don't believe in that.
I doubt any poster here believes that he is still presently a danger to society and I doubt anyone here cares to rehabilitate him.
Thus is falls squarely on the notion of punishment as a form of justice, which I do not agree with. And I'm not the only one who feels that way about it.
We should approach this with more temperament. I brought up the Armenian Genocide and the mistreatment of Native Americans to prove a point.
Stinkles said that we have to punish this person because the event will "inform our culture" that war crimes are unacceptable. It has already been established that they are unacceptable. He also said that we must never forget the atrocities that have been committed.
Now, there was my gripe. We do forget the atrocities that were committed, sometimes willfully. Our memory of history is tainted by politics. World War II is salient in our minds because it has had a spotlight shined on it since it occurred. And because we have a black and white view of the event. It's seen by many as the ultimate fight between good and evil. The Axis Powers are considered evil. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin are all considered evil, and anyone in league with them is evil, right? That's the popularization.
Had they won, the Allied Powers would today be considered evil. The notion of good and evil is too shallow, and it has led many people in this thread to essentially say, "Fuck him, he's a nazi, may he rot in jail/hell."
Our history is tainted by politics. We don't passionately argue for the reclamation of land by Native Americans. We don't passionately argue for reparations for Armenia by Turkey. It's political. And it's unfeasible. What about reparations for African slaves in the United States? Can we feasibly do that? Probably not. Although it was a great injustice, our ability to set it right is no longer there.
We can send this man back to Europe and he'll get a lawyer that will delay proceedings and then we'll discover that the evidence against him is simply not enough to convict him. It will be a big waste of time and money. But it's not just about time and money. It's really a question of why are we doing this? By letting him alone, we're not saying what he did was okay at all.
We're saying that the circumstances don't allow us to achieve justice.
We can attach a label to his name that brands him as a Nazi war criminal. That's something we could do.
Anything more than that will fail. And it won't look good for us, especially if he's acquitted.
I was being facetious when I said it was the greatest evil perpetrated on mankind.
I think it's a problematic product that needs to be improved, certainly.
Squirrel Killer
Member
But do you still think my wife is genetically deficient and shouldn't procreate?
No.
But if you and your wife were both carriers for a debilitating disease like cystic fibrosis and were aware of it before having kids, then I would say you shouldn't have kids.
No, my view is basically the same as Fonz.
Just FYI, the crewmembers of the enola gay were unanimous in looking back with no regrets or guilt about their actions. They killed over 100,000 on that mission. And they became decorated war heroes for it. And they believe they did the right thing, and had no guilt over it. And no one will remember them as war criminals.
What do you think the germans serving under Hitler felt? Keep in mind that prior to hitler's rise to power, germany was absolutely miserable. People burned money for fuel in their homes because it was so devalued by the reparations imposed on germany for WW1. Hitler not only brought germany out of economic ruin, but he did so while serving as a role model (yes, a role model) for the entire western world on recovering out of the great depression. He brought prosperity where there had only been despair. The vast majority of people would (and did, and DO) feel justified in their actions when they see propserity being brought to them and their communities. Regardless of how evil the acts may look in hindsight.
Looking through history, drawing upon examples from the last 150 or so years, do we look back on things like atomic bombings, the japanese internment camps, the Katyn massacre, the trail of tears and systematic extermination of native americans, etc, with as much disgust in our throats as we do, say, pearl harbor? Or 9/11? Nope. Do the japanese or germans, even? Nope.
In World War 2, Russia killed more civilians than the germans. We (the US) firebombed Tokyo. We used nuclear weapons against hundreds of thousands of people. But we (Both Russia and the US and other allies) won. And history treats us kindly.
There's a reason why in hindsight, the good guys seem to prevail. And that's because they're the winners, and get to write history (both figuratively and literally). Not because they were morally superior. There were plenty of war crimes committed all over the place. That's the reality of war. (And that's not an excuse for activity by any party, or an attempt to say one did worse things than another.)
Yeah, it is. This guy got away with probably unspeakable crimes for over 60 years and is probably near his deathbed, so even if they did try to bring him to justice, he'd probably just find the thing amusing and could care less, making "punishment" pointless. Not to mention, all the court costs and fees that would be wasted on someone who would probably die before precendings would be over with.
I hate to say it, but it's pretty much moot at this point to bother with this guy. Take comfort in the idea that if there's a hell, he'll certainly be going to it soon.
This thread proves the difficultly in having any meaningful conversation about this kind of topic: If you don't agree that the guy deserves death/jail/punishment regardless of circumstance, cost, or practicality you are a dick and will be added to an ignore list or be seen as disgusting etc etc. It's the same with WWII in general, having any "well looking at things from the Nazi point of view one could see why they might think..." paints you as some 'anti-semite sympathizer who can't see that the great evil needed to be exterminated at all costs and treated as the animals they were'. Thinking about another side of something doesn't mean you endorse or respect it.
This is the internet. Your argument is invalid.
DUFFMCWALIN
Member
There is no other side is this particular case. He has evaded capture for 60 plus years. Hes still a wanted man.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
In this case, the "victors" being the non-Nazi human race. Who is going to hold us accountable? Skinheads? Lazio ultras?
Worst first post ever.
He's a war criminal. He ordered the deaths of innocent civilians. He tried to evade the net of justice, and failed. Nice job immigration folks.
HoodWinked
Member
i think ap was the one that broke the story. ICE is useless.
You're the first one to bring up anti-Semitism in this thread. Sorry your guy Adolf lost
Fonz72
Member
I was talking about your two word reply to the quote.
It make it appear that punishment doesn't work on your ass....................just trying to lighten the mood in a very dark thread.
Fonz72
Member
I AM NOT DEFENDING EITHER SIDE IN THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT>
No one holds the "winners" of wars accountable. That's the whole point. If you need evidence of this look at the atrocities mentioned in GaimeGuy's post that I quoted for you.
War is a terrible terrible practice and to fight and win a war, horrendous acts are committed. This is the nature of war, so when one side is declared the "victor" the other side immediately becomes the "loser" and is judged for the terrible acts they committed. Neither party comes out of a war virtuous, no matter how just your cause is.
So, to bring this back to the question I responded to in the first place. Yes, the Allies would be judged just as harshly as the Axis powers if we had lost WWII. You can't kill several million civilians and not be judged, no matter the reason for the deaths. People tend to hold grudges for things like that.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Genetically deficient... Holy shit. I guess his posts in this thread make more sense to me now.
I do think he should go to trial, but at the same time I think I see where he's coming from. Should the soldiers and commanding officers that dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki be tried as war criminals as well? It's all about dem politics. That and the dude will die in like 2 years anyway.
Valid point actually. Even though Japan were "the bad guys" in WWII, we still slaughtered thousands(hundreds of thousands?) of their people with those bombs. But we were the good guys so that is okay right?
As for the OP I am on the fence. On one hand I agree that what they did was atrocious and they should be punished for it. At the same time he is so old and it has been 70 years since the war that what is the point? He will die soon anyways, he may not have enjoyed giving the orders he did.
I love how everybody assumes that because he was a General of the SS it automatically means that he loved doing this, but given what I have learned about Germany at that time and well after just reading 1984 I am inclined to at least question that maybe he did what he did because if he did not he would be killed. If he went against the Nazi party he would be slaughtered and someone else would take his place so he either did it and lived or died. Maybe he had a family that would be attacked if he disobeyed. No one really knows why he did what he did except for him and in reality nothing he says will matter because people would think he is just lying to protect himself
Absolutely.
Wow. I never said "genetically deficient."
What this thread has shown is that people like to manufacture the good versus evil paradigm even when it's not there.
Any war crimes the Allies may or may not have committed does absolutely nothing to excuse the atrocities committed by the Nazi. These weren't just horrible things done to their enemy, or their enemy's civilians as part of total war, but to their own citizens. It goes past crimes of war, into the realm of crimes against humanity.
Why are we making up excuses for the guy? Excuses that are pure fabrication, no less. He wasn't some unwilling conscript in the Wehrmacht. He was a commanding SS officer. You don't earn a command position in the SS without being committed to the party.
The Ukrainian Self Defense Legion was formed in 19 March, 1943, so unless he went from a new recruit after mid-1942 to an SS commander in less than a year (unlikely), he knew damn well what he was doing. And even then, he had to be a committed Nazi to advance that high up.
Why are we making up excuses for the guy? Excuses that are pure fabrication, no less. He wasn't some unwilling conscript in the Wehrmacht. He was a commanding SS officer. You don't earn a command position in the SS without being committed to the party.
Wikipedia SS page
Wikipedia "Ideology of the SS" page
The Ukrainian Self Defense Legion was formed in 19 March, 1943, so unless he went from a new recruit after mid-1942 to an SS commander in less than a year (unlikely), he knew damn well what he was doing. And even then, he had to be a committed Nazi to advance that high up.
I'm well aware of what you stated, but you can't honestly believe that he couldn't possibly fake his dedication to the party can you? The whole July 20 Plot comes to mind here. He swore an oath of loyalty to Hitler probably, as it seems most of them did, before Hitler went nuts with ordering war crimes etc. Breaking that oath, I would assume, meant death.
Again I am not saying he is innocent, I am merely saying that people shouldn't jump his ass and say how much of a piece of shit he is when they do not know the entire back story behind it.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
what happened here? Nazi war criminal thread derailed by infant formula?
- Status