German poster campaign launched to find surviving Nazis

[Magnus McGinty]

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.

You should have waited for more to commit to their positions!

 

[LDC]

Not mentioning individuals and fwiw, both you and LDC have been consistent on both issues as far as I recall. It's a definite hypocisy trap for a certain type of lefty though. Hopefully someone else will bite.

Slander! Wash your mouth out with soap, I take pride in my eclectic inconsistency!

 

[Spymaster]

Their record of welcoming (ex?) Nazis into their midst "with open arms" perhaps?

Or maybe the current situation where some wings of the German State are riddled with Neonazis maybe?

So they shouldn't prosecute neo-nazis either?

 

[Spymaster]

You should have waited for more to commit to their positions!

I know. Thread's too slow though

 

[chilango]

So they shouldn't prosecute neo-nazis either?

Oh they should. But they do so lacking moral authority.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course they do. Why shouldn't they?

It's too late. Way too late. Loads of ex-Nazis were let off - more than let off, they held prominent positions in industry - in the decades following the war. That was one of the main reasons for the anger of the likes of the RAF. And now, decades after that, they decide to go after some low-level functionaries?

Germany is of course a very very different place now, but those the German state are prosecuting for being Nazis were at the time working for the German state. I find it hard to square that, especially at this distance in time and in light of the history of failing to act earlier. Not to mention that they are singling out the odd person here and there when millions were complicit.

 

[Spymaster]

It's too late. Way too late. Loads of ex-Nazis were let off - more than let off, they held prominent positions in industry - in the decades following the war. That was one of the main reasons for the anger of the likes of the RAF. And now, decades after that, they decide to go after some low-level functionaris?

That's an argument for nobody prosecuting ex-nazis, not just the German state. I agree, btw.

Germany is of course a very very different place now, but those the German state are prosecuting for being Nazis were at the time working for the German state.

A completely different German state though, as you acknowledge. We could reverse your position and make a decent argument that the modern German state has a greater moral obligation than anyone else to prosecute former nazis.

 

[LDC]

It's too late. Way too late. Loads of ex-Nazis were let off - more than let off, they held prominent positions in industry - in the decades following the war. That was one of the main reasons for the anger of the likes of the RAF. And now, decades after that, they decide to go after some low-level functionaries?

Germany is of course a very very different place now, but those the German state are prosecuting for being Nazis were at the time working for the German state. I find it hard to square that, especially at this distance in time and in light of the history of failing to act earlier. Not to mention that they are singling out the odd person here and there when millions were complicit.

Of course it's all late and lacklustre, but in this case (and others) it's that new evidence or people's identity has only just been established. Should that be ignored because X years have passed?

There's also some difference between being complicit but not involved, and directly involved isn't there? She wasn't just a random member of the German population who knew but did nothing, she facilitated it with her work.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I don’t think there should be a statute of limitations for complicity in genocide.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course it's all late and lacklustre, but in this case (and others) it's that new evidence or people's identity has only just been established. Should that be ignored because X years have passed?

Should a 97-year-old be prosecuted for something she is alleged to have done when she was 18? No. It is too late.

I don't think anything resembling justice is possible 80 years after the fact.

 

[bimble]

What a weird story. Why is she fleeing from her retirement home in a taxi aged 97 I mean why did it take this long for them to identify her, that just seems mad?
She's just getting a suspended sentence so i suppose the point is to perform some sort of theatre but not sure who its for.
Its almost 50 years since she told a different trial that she had no idea at all that murders were happening at the concentration camp where she worked.