Stop the De-Nazification
MorgMcA said 06/25, 02:30 AM
Ok, I know that half the world will suddenly decide to hate me and call me a Nazi, but before they do hear me out. (and for the record no, i'm not)
Why is it that we are still going around trying to find and hang people for things that happened almost 70 years ago. I'm pretty sure people change over the course of 70 years. the latest of these (according to an article on cnn posted 6/24/08) are 4 prison guards. guards just like any others, except that they happened to be Germans in the WWII era. wow, major crime there. a "war crime" even (what the heck is a "war crime" btw?)
Yes, yes, yes, I know Nazis are bad. did you know most of them had nothing against jews, had no clue that mass executions were taking place and mostly had regular jobs so they could feed their own families. are we to hang the current Pope and Arnold Schwartzenegger because they had nazis in their pasts. yes there were a few horrendous, revolting, twisted, disgusting individuals who might as well be considered pure evil, but most were just clerks, or lawyers, or industrialist, or even prison guards
let's not forget, we in the US had our own concentration camps, we didn't call them that, but we did
IamFry said 06/25, 12:25 PM
First of all, I don't think you're a nazi, and anyone who, based on this, believes you are needs his/her head examined.
The process of denazification, introduced by Eisenhower and initialized by Allied forces in the mid-1940s, is a direct reaction to the single worst crime in human history.
It's not about killing Jews; it's not a 'Jewish thing'. The crime in question is the systematic killing of multiple millions of civilians. Yes, we're all familiar with it, but it bears restating.
MM: Are we to hang the current Pope and Arnold Schwartzenegger because they had nazis in their past?
IF: Where do I sign up? ; )
*cough cough* ahem
If you want to argue that we should withdraw the majority of our troops stationed in Germany, I agree, but the movement of denazification has nearly run its course. Using legislation to repeal such a measure would be a waste of time AND a somewhat disturbing gesture.
Also, we didn't exterminate people in our "concentration camps"; that's the key.
MorgMcA said 06/25, 01:35 PM
Thanks for the support
Why though are we continueing to hunt down people who may not have actually done anything wrong, but have the title nazi attached to them so that we can whisk them off the a sham trial (let's call it what it is) and hang them for crimes they've committed nearly 70 years ago, meanwhile during those 70 years of hiding (understandably so) they have lived in peace and haven't broken any local crimes (otherwise they would've found much quicker). 70 years of living in peace can completely change any normal persons perception on everything, and that's really what these 4 individuals, branded as Nazis (w/ all the negative stigma that goes w/ it), are, they're normal people
Why don't we stop hunting them down, it's been nearly 70 years. this makes them all at least 88. are we going to contiue to hunt when they're all supposed to be 148. it's ridiculous already
Germany didn't turn their concentration camps into death camps 'til after they started losing, would we have done the same if Japanese soldiers landed on our soil, I can't say, I hope not, but I can't say that we wouldn't've. hate was high and they were already in one place
IamFry said 06/25, 04:14 PM
I don't see a problem with hunting down people who are murder accomplices for the rest of their natural lives. Sure, potential Nazi soldiers were faced with a tough choice - one that I don't envy them - to go against a psychotic state in the spirit of humanity, or to go with said state in order to preserve their personal safety and that of their families.
There's no doubt that we're all faced with tough choices as human beings, and it doesn't get much tougher than that, but the choice they made has repercussions, and former Nazi soldiers must deal with them. Should a decrepit old murderer be brought to justice? Absolutely.
Are you suggesting, for a second, that these people are not murderers? Accomplices at the very least?
Germany didn't turn their concentration camps into death camps until they were able to pass the legislation. Losing the war wasn't the cause, it was simply used a catalyst for passing the legislation. Secondly, the people killed in German camps didn't "land on their soil" as an invading force, they were private non-militant citizens of the state; there was no relationship between Jews, Catholics, etc., and the Axis' enemies.
MorgMcA said 06/25, 09:55 PM
Is there really a need to hunt someone down, who's lead a peaceful life, for something that happened 70 years ago. I mean if they really had done something horrible and then lead a peaceful life for another 70 years, I really don't think that there's any valid threat to society, am I wrong. I don't think it is just to hang someone for something they've done 70 years ago and had to live with the consequences ever since
Is it really impossible for someone to have nothing nothing wrong, except wear a badge w/ an eagle perched over a swastika. I mean really are we hanging people for what they've done or because of the clothes they wore
So you don't judge them for their choices, seeing that it was a difficult choice that you wouldn't want to make, and want to see them hanged for the same choice. And this isn't supposed to be taken as hypocritical
Legislation would be closer to cutting red tape (which given that Hitler was a dictator, I'm sure wasn't really necessary), losing the war was the cause. The Japanese in our concetration camps were "non-militant citizens of [our] state" as well
sidenote if you want to talk about the single worst crime in history see: Josef Stalin
IamFry said 06/27, 11:20 AM
(Sorry about the delay; I've been busy.)
I can't help going back to the murderer analogy. To call it an analogy, even, is inaccurate. A long time ago, these people committed murders. We're not talking about German regulars (they aren't considered war criminals), but actual Nazi Party members.
If a man gets swept up in a gang as a youth, due to tough circumstances, and ends up taking part in countless murders, and then grows old, since when do we consider him absolved? In the US, there is no statute of limitations on first degree murder - let alone innumerable counts of FDM.
The penalty for those convicted will likely be modest, due to their advanced age, and if they have in fact led peaceful lives otherwise, but they should have to face justice nonetheless - on principle if nothing else.
Sure, I sympathize with people who don't want to see Gramps carted off to jail, but the lion's share of my sympathy lies with those who will never meet their grandparents, and I wouldn't do them a disservice by absolving their murderers.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Iam I'm glad to see you take the other side of this one. As I do consider you to be one of the half that would continue to read and not jump to conclusions. Skip, I don't intend to apologize for the few who did the extremely heinous acts or knew about them, but for me one thing we did learn from the holocaust is how easy it is to run something so big so secretly. I'm sure people suspected, just as the soviet populace did under Stalin, but to say that most or even a large minority knew what was going on and to what extent, I can't beleive that. It sounds too much like simple demonizing and not enough like actuality.
MorgMcA | 06/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
There is always the stigma of the Nazi's, so this topic could be a misunderstood one if read wrong. One argument for keeping troops within Germany is for their own protection (from who I don't know). The German constitution prevents the army from deploying in Germany during peacetime to combat or from deploying any troops overseas. Having foreign troops in Germany could allow them to intervene in civil disturbance. I disagree with Skip's point about the support for the anti-semitism. The vast majority of German's didn't actually support the concentration camps, or indeed most of the anti-semitic policies. A 'national boycott' called by hitler lasted for all of a day before being called off, krystalnacht was generally conducted by the SS and even as later as 1944 the Nazi's were trying to convince people that the camp's were actually comfortable. The pursuit of the Nazi's should be limited to only the worst offenders rather than individual officers, since a lot of Nazi officers will be dead. I daresay that deep in the records of Mossad, the FBI or any other similar organisations will be details on assassinations of war criminals. I'm sorry if I misunderstood the argument, the argument's are fairly intellectual.
Miral150 | 06/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
"One argument for keeping troops within Germany is for their own protection (from who I don't know)." I know from who - from being sent to Iraq! Good point...
IamFry | 06/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
No, Miral you both understand it quite well, I'm not sure why you mentioned our troops being stationed in Germany, however. oh, nevermind, I guess there is a tangent to pull that from.
MorgMcA | 06/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
The troops were mentioned in IamFry's initial counter-argument. And Morg, why do I 'both understand it well'?
Miral150 | 06/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Denazification is the reason Western Europe and Japan prove to be strong liberal democracies whilst oppression regimes of today act with carde blanche diregard
Rotovia PhD | 06/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Miral, you and skip both understand what it is I'm trying to say very well. And yeah I caught on to the troops thing after I went back and read Iam's first rebuttal. RPhD, look at the context I'm using. You'll find I'm not debating what happened in the past, just our ongoing nazi hunts.
MorgMcA | 06/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
i think it's more that you don't want to believe it Morg. I'm not demonizing them, but i don't pardon them either.
Skipper04 | 06/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Two hypotheticals: 1) A man commits a heinous murder. 70 years later, he is apprehended. Yes, I believe he should still be punished. True, he may have reformed, but there are other purposes for punishment than rehabilitation, and they survive as long as he does. 2) A man holds some administrative, low-rank position in a fascist regime whose wrongdoings are largely unknown to him. I don't think we can put him on the same level as Hitler and hold him accountable per se for "war crimes."
DonkeyDude | 06/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
If you were to hook ANY former Nazi up to a polygraph and ask him if he knew there was a genocide going on, I'd bet the farm that the results would indicate he did. No doubt prosecution should be done on a case-by-case basis, but I have a problem with absolving the hypothetical nearly-innocent Nazi accountants of the world, because with them, you're pardoning the hard core Ralph Fiennes types.
IamFry | 06/27/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
in the interest of fairness, i agree with your argument morg. but disagree with one aspect. you seem to downplay the number of German soldiers and civilians who were knowledgeable about the holocaust. The fact is that Hitler didn't create anti-semitism in Europe, he simply played on it. and six million jews, twelve million people in total, are dragged from their homes never to be seen from again and i'm supposed to accept that no one knew or suspected what was going on? Where did they think all those people were going? Why did they think the nazis were hunting them? You may be right in that perhaps we should show some mercy to these four individuals, but let's not apologize for the many nations of people who turned their back on genocide.
Skipper04 | 06/25/08
Report Offensive Comment