There can't be that many of them left now and a suspended sentence seems a bit toothless also.Irmgard Furchner: Nazi typist guilty of complicity in 10,500 murders
Irmgard Furchner, 97, who worked for a Nazi commandant, is convicted in Germany.www.bbc.com
i mean, honestly, does anything think this is a useful trial? a good use of public money? it just seems like scraping the very bottom of the barrel. a 97 year old woman who was a typist at the Stutthof concentration camp when she was 18-19 is tried (in a juvenile court, no less, as she was so young at the time) and given a 2 year suspended sentence for complicity in mass murder.
I think the OUN-B is still goingThey could just go to Ukraine. Apparently it’s full of them…
There can't be that many of them left now and a suspended sentence seems a bit toothless also.
Severe shoplifting would get you that sort of sentence (so they said on BBC) implying that it should have been a stiffer sentence despite her advanced years.
Are you saying that this is the end for the punishment of the WWII Nazis?Oh come on. No one’s putting a 97 year old in jail for something they did 80 years ago.
Are you saying that this is the end for the punishment of the WWII Nazis?
Probably can't be so many left I suppose.No. I'm saying it's probably the end of imprisoning them.
Sentencing now will only be token.
Oh come on. No one’s putting a 97 year old in jail for something they did 80 years ago.
Anyone who served even a day during 1945 is 95 now, the last WWII veteran may go during my lifetime, but certainly within my daughter's lifetime.Probably can't be so many left I suppose.
You have a point of course...
But here I'm asking myself -- what choice would a teenage typist have had if it had dawned on her that atrocities were being committed? If she's worthy of punishment, pretty much everyone who lived through those times is equally worthy.
No.is it plausible that the idea they could still be done for it when they are in their 90s going to swing it for them?
She is 97 now, so would have been younger than 18 when she started in 1943. Anyway, I just think it would be a bit of waste of public money imprisoning her.I'd have sent her to prison, fuck her, she should have spent her last days alone in a cell not seeing any family or friends. She was 18, married an SS officer, and was secretary in a death camp. No apology from her according to the reports either.
No.
She is 97 now, so would have been younger than 18 when she started in 1943. Anyway, I just think it would be a bit of waste of public money imprisoning her.
Should everyone who's ever worked for a tobacco company, in whatever role, be prosecuted?
The only good reason for punishing a 97 year old for something they did when they were 18 would be if it had some kind of useful deterrent effect.
An 18 year old considering getting involved in some kind of war crime in Ukraine right now - you might hope that in the back of their mind is the idea that they might get put on trial for what they are doing... some time after the war, whenever that is. If that's not enough to stop them doing something - is it plausible that the idea they could still be done for it when they are in their 90s going to swing it for them?
I'm just wondering how much responsibility people who work in lowly roles should bear.Likening that to working in a Nazi death camp, do fuck off.
I'm just wondering how much responsibility people who work in lowly roles should bear.
I'm just wondering how much responsibility people who work in lowly roles should bear.
Hmmm. Not sure your hypocrisy hunting is going to gain too much traction, whichever thread it's on. First off, 'with open arms'? Nobody's said that. But in my case, I was quite unpopular on here a few years ago for posting that I opposed the prosecution of John Demjanjuk.
Why?It'd be interesting to see what the crossover is between people who want a 97 year old who clearly poses no threat to anyone and had little or no choice in her teenage actions, imprisoned; and those who argue that Shamima Begum should be welcomed back to Britain with open arms.
Does the German state have the moral authority to prosecute Nazis?
Their record of welcoming (ex?) Nazis into their midst "with open arms" perhaps?Of course they do. Why shouldn't they?