Lest We Forget -- Or Is It Forgive....

[R. S. Martin]

Possibly this was covered elsewhere--I haven't been around for a while. Just came across an article in my local newspaper about a war trial for a ninety-year-old German man who is presently being accused for ordering the killing of 14 Italian civilians in WW2 in 1944. I understand the accusation is based on photographs, and that the first trials occurred in 2006.

 

The article says there are no known living witnesses.

 

It also says he is looking at life imprisonment.

 

He is pleading innocent.

 

He was 25 at the time (June 1944).

 

I have so many questions about this. This happened sixty-five years ago--a human lifespan more or less. This 90-year-old is going to die tomorrow or next week anyway. There is no mention that he is, or has been, a threat to society in the 65 years since the end of WW2, or is likely to be a threat in his remaining days. I am probably just stupid, short-sighted, and narrow-minded, but I fail to see in what way he treated his enemies worse than the British, American, and other English-speaking war-lords have done--and continue to do--in WW2 and since and they are not facing similar charges. So I'm asking: Why bring this up so many years later? Is it wrong to forgive?

 

There's been Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the present War on Terrorism, to name the more prominent conflicts since WW2 in which Britain, Canada, and the US have been involved.

 

Is the trial, conviction, and imprisonment of this specific German lieutenant of 65 years ago in any way relevant to human life, justice, truth, or history? Or any other valuable aspect of life on this planet past, present, or future?

 

What are your thoughts? I'd just like to see some reason in the madness--if there is any.

[R. S. Martin]

Here is the Associated Press article about this online.

[florduh]

Ruby, this is my position too, and it's not popular.

 

After all, we have decades ago forgiven, rebuilt, and subsidized the enemy governments of WWII and became trading partners with them, we hired the former Nazi scientists to go to work for us; but the little guy is, as always, the scape goat.

 

Hell, if every 'war crime' was prosecuted there wouldn't be time for the actual war. We have to carefully pick those we can make an example of.

[Vixentrox]

There was a discussion similiar in nature about a concentration camp guard a few months back. WW2 was very messy affair for all invovled with atrocities and war crimes commited by pretty much every nation involved. I really don't see how they can be positive 60 years later it was this particular fellow that gave the orders.

[R. S. Martin]

Ruby, this is my position too, and it's not popular.

 

After all, we have decades ago forgiven, rebuilt, and subsidized the enemy governments of WWII and became trading partners with them, we hired the former Nazi scientists to go to work for us; but the little guy is, as always, the scape goat.

 

Hell, if every 'war crime' was prosecuted there wouldn't be time for the actual war. We have to carefully pick those we can make an example of.

 

There was a discussion similiar in nature about a concentration camp guard a few months back. WW2 was very messy affair for all invovled with atrocities and war crimes commited by pretty much every nation involved.

 

Well, okay, this is going to sound totally ridiculous and scandalous, but for the pacifists among us, let's go after all the war criminals then. If it's too much time on their hands that is causing the wars, that should solve the problem--at least for a generation or so. Maybe by the time all the war crimes of the past sixty-five years are sorted through and all sentences served, the next generation will have grown up and become so used to peace that they will sneer at their barbarous elders and simply not go that route to settle differences anymore. It could make for a better world, you know. Of course, I may face prosecution for thinking such thoughts...

 

I really don't see how they can be positive 60 years later it was this particular fellow that gave the orders.

 

Even if it was...I watched a video that showed clips of the actual trials back in 1945, or whenever they took place. The first German called up to the stand began to make a statement for himself that he felt he had to make before he could plead guilty or innocent. He was forbidden to say anything. Every single man pleaded innocent. "Frei" was the word they used; that is German for "free." I suppose that is the official German term for pleading innocent. The English-speaking prosecutors spoke in English and the German defendants responded in German. The narrator said that no one took responsibility; they were simply following orders.

 

I've been thinking about this. These people had been born anywhere from 1890 to 1915. They had lived through the Great Depression, a time when in Germany unemployment was rampant and there was often no food and definitely no winter clothing. Hitler came along in the middle of the 1930s and created jobs--this put food on the table and made children's mitts, winter coats and boots possible; for the first time in years marriage was feasible for young people because there was hope that they could provide food and winter clothing for a family. (I got this from a German video on why people chose and followed Hitler.)

 

In 1939, and into the first half of the 1940s, these people did not know that they would lose WW2 any more than the allies knew that they would win. It is the responsibility of every one of us to play whatever role we happen to have in our own society. Hitler, and his top commanders, killed themselves when Berlin was being taken by the Soviets. The rest were probably doing nothing other than obeying orders (following social obligations) imposed on them by the role they happened to have in their society--just like all of us do.

 

Stanley Milgram was the psychologist who did the experiments on "obeying orders" in the early 1960s. These showed that most humans would have followed the orders that the German generals and soldiers and other members of the Nazi concentration camp machine did to make it work. This "machine" included the academic, medical, and legal institutions as well as military and other segments of society. And this is why I find so scary when people are made such a huge example of.

 

By severely punishing people for being good citizens, are we not making criminals--or at best, encouraging crime?

[Thurisaz]

Good arguments from everyone. Sadly, we are living in a world of double standards, especially in this case.

 

A trial for everyone who possibly was not just a soldier (of whatever rank) but a war criminal is perfectly okay to me (although the definition of "war criminal" may well be one huge can of worms... I'm sure opinions can differ seriously about that).

 

As for "when is one guilty of war crimes?" and "what punishment is just for what war crime and under what 'post-war circumstances'?", that's a more difficult thing.

 

I recently heard a neat word for the specific post-war German view (or insanity?) on this topic, one I never heard before. The word is "Kontaktschuld" (guilt by contact). I think it's a damn good metaphor. You get into contact with that horrific episode of history in any way and don't immediately do everything you can to make it clear you condemn it, you (according to that view) condone it. Therefore one can't know that a person possibly committed war crimes back then and just do nothing, because by your knowledge you are in contact with the past and the specter of guilt by contact rears its ugly head. Same for a court trial and punishment. If you don't scream for a trial and punishment as severe as possible, bang, guilt by contact again.

 

Sick? Yup. But that's the reality over here.

 

EDIT:

 

*BSG geek mode*

 

Those of you who watched that show, remember the finale of season 3? (For the non-geeks, I'm referring to the remake of "Battlestar Galactica")

 

Pretty much the same situation with Baltar and the war crimes during the Cylon occupancy of New Caprica. Oh, umm, yeah, the president declared amnesty for everything done during that time, but Baltar, Baltar!, NO!, we must drag him into court, we must punish him, the sentence must be death... because (like Apollo nicely stated it)... umm... because we really really don't like him!

 

(Yeah you can tell I really fucking love that show... )

[Vixentrox]

What constitutes a war criminal though is different between now and then. Things acceptable then probably wouldn't be tolerated today. I mean, were all the air forces war criminals for bombing cities? They didn't think they were. How about on D-Day when the paratroopers had orders to not take prisoners till they could link up with the beaches? Or the fellows that killed wounded Japanese because some of the Japanese would blow up corpsman with a grenade? Is killing captured partisians without a trial a war crime? Was using flame throwers and napalm?

[R. S. Martin]

I recently heard a neat word for the specific post-war German view (or insanity?) on this topic, one I never heard before. The word is "Kontaktschuld" (guilt by contact). I think it's a damn good metaphor. You get into contact with that horrific episode of history in any way and don't immediately do everything you can to make it clear you condemn it, you (according to that view) condone it. Therefore one can't know that a person possibly committed war crimes back then and just do nothing, because by your knowledge you are in contact with the past and the specter of guilt by contact rears its ugly head. Same for a court trial and punishment. If you don't scream for a trial and punishment as severe as possible, bang, guilt by contact again.

 

Sick? Yup. But that's the reality over here.

 

That helps me better understand what's going on. Thanks for sharing it. I don't know if this makes sense but I'm thinking it sounds a lot like young people realizing that their parents made horrible mistakes and they resolve not to make the same mistakes at any cost so they go to the opposite extreme, only in this case it is on a national scale. Since a nation is so much "bigger" than a family, maybe it takes a lot longer for it to get to this stage of rebelling against/rejecting all semblance of the atrocities committed by the elders. I dunno.

 

I won't live long enough to see the full psychological effects of all this. I think a lot of my own struggles around the issue of WW2 is the war stories I was raised on. It's a type of war stories that I suppose nobody here would recognize as war stories. But the fear my parents felt as children seeing their elder brothers being hauled away to work camps by a government whose language they barely understood and whose values they believed would take them to everlasting damnation was palpable. Possibly it was all the more fearsome for me because it made no sense.

 

It made no sense because I was also raised with stories of the Anabaptists who were martyred for their beliefs. These young men (older brothers) weren't killed or martyred at all. They got to return home several years later. I did not understand why anyone was so upset that they had to leave home. They did not have to go to war and get killed like everyone else had to so what's the big deal? Yet it seemed there was a big deal and I wasn't getting it. Maybe hell had something to do with it???

 

Jesus did say that Christians had to suffer persecution in order to qualify for heaven. But this didn't seem like real persecution because they didn't get killed; all they got was mocked and ridiculed and sent away from home. I got mocked and ridiculed in my own home because I was so stupid or asked too many questions or whatever so what's the big deal? I had to forgive everyone else so what is everyone crying about? I just wasn't getting it. They were always saying everyone was really bad people and evil outside of God's grace and they made me feel like I was especially bad so I guess hell did play a role in all of this.

 

Not to mention that we are of German descent and in WW2 the Germans were the bad guys. Yet Jesus also said to love our enemies. How in the world could the Mennonites be conscientious objectors and at the same time feel so hostile toward the Germans? The hostility was never overtly mentioned. Yet it was there deep down. The war was evil. And it was the Germans who caused this evil war. That, by default, made the Germans bad. And one could always hear things in the tone of voice used to say "die Deutsche" (the Germans). Did that mean we had to hate ourselves? This was not something I could even think at the time but I'm quite sure it has something to do with my problems with WW2.

 

To complicate things even more, Dad used the same tone of voice when talking about the Jews. One day I asked him, "Why don't we like the Jews?" He seemed to be taken aback at my question and gave some lame answer that made absolutely no sense to me. At that time I had not yet heard about the holocaust. I don't think my people know much about it because I talked to one of my sisters the other day and she barely knew what I was talking about. It never ever came up in sermons; don't ask me why not. Yet in my university classes with liberal Christians in the arts and humanities whenever an example of evil was needed, Hitler was always used and sometimes Stalin and Pol Pot were also listed. But Hitler remained the uncontested standard example for "pure evil." My skeptical brain could not help but ask whether he did not have human blood, or exactly what kind of absolute bias was at play that so totally condemned one specific person?

 

I think I am not the only English-speaking person seeking to understand exactly why things happened as they did. I think that is why some courses are being offered at the local university that are being offered. I also think that is why some of the videos are online in the English language that are online, looking closely at the German side of WW2. I think this war on terrorism, and the continuing terrorist attacks, cause people to ask some very serious questions and to look to history for answers. There is a saying that people who ignore history are doomed to repeat its errors.

 

I was dumb-founded when the US responded with war to 9/11. I had thought Western society had learned too much from WW2 and I had full confidence that no such barbarous retaliation would be taken. And to think that Canada and Britain are also involved. I just want to shake some sense into these people. Then again, I have never been physically threatened (though the attacks in New York were uncomfortably and shockingly close to home), so I may not be qualified to speak.

 

Maybe I should have posted this in Rants and Replies. This seems to be a topic I need to get off my chest and I appreciate so much that you, Thurisaz, joined the convo. I was concerned that it not offend you as our resident German. Well, I don't know what I am. I am of German descent but my ancestors crossed the ocean roughly three centuries ago. And it turns out I have English blood, too. Who'd a thunk it.

[pitchu]

Whether on a large or small scale, murder is murder.

 

To dismiss the importance of bringing murderers to justice on the grounds that the case is so old, or that so many were doing it, and/or it was socio-economically induced is craven.

[florduh]

Whether on a large or small scale, murder is murder.

 

To dismiss the importance of bringing murderers to justice on the grounds that the case is so old, or that so many were doing it, and/or it was socio-economically induced is craven.

 

I doubt anyone can argue with that sentiment.

 

In my opinion, all acts of war are criminal, but I don't make the arbitrary laws that govern such things.

 

Given that resources are finite for every venture, efforts might be more useful and productive if we concentrate on pursuing current and/or recent war crimes. Most of the WWII vets are dead (or almost dead) and we have more relevant issues at hand. If efforts are made to obtain a life sentence for a 90 year old ex-German soldier, the next step will be to try the rest of the German army postmortem. Then there are the 90 year old Japanese guards who tortured American GIs some 60 years ago. What about them? Then there are the guys who dropped atomic bombs - twice - on the civilian men, women and children of Japan. Who thinks that act might be a war crime?

 

I don't believe anyone wants to forgive any war criminals, Nazi or otherwise, but the time factor alone should put revenge for WWII on the back burner. There are current criminals, war and otherwise, committing large scale atrocities around the world. I don't think it's anti-Jewish or denying the Holocaust to focus on current problems that might make a difference to some potential victims.

 

Oh, and for y'all in the South, the Civil War is also over!

[Vigile]

I agree with what Florduh said. In addition, I would argue that people feel morally soothed by the fact that we are still going after almost dead nazis. This gives a false sense of moral superiority and allows us to ignore the fact that war criminals and war crimes are amongst us and that the blood is on many hands of those who are still garnering support in large circles. IOW, if we were really going after all war criminals and making it known that we aren't going to put up with it any longer it's one thing, but if we are simply going to serve justice to those who it is politically expedient to do so, then we aren't really serving justice at all.

 

Hell, if lying to the nation about a false threat in order to invade and occupy a foreign country and killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions is not a war crime then the nation needs to trade in its moral compass for a new one that actually works.

[pitchu]

if we were really going after all war criminals and making it known that we aren't going to put up with it any longer it's one thing,

 

That's the thing I want.

 

Of course it can never be fully realized, because the list of those to be pursued is so long, but the goal is a moral goal. And we could start with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and certain members of the CIA. (That is, if justice were a priority in the current administration.)

[nightflight]

To the nayers......is your opinion confined only to "war criminals" or to all who have committed outrages and atrocities? I'm thinking of the priests in Ireland who sexually abused thousands of children. Does the passage of time lessen their guilt or suggest that less effort should be engaged in pursuing justice?

[Thurisaz]

I'd say war criminals and the Irish childfucking priests aren't really the same. As I see it, there's much less of a doubt about the possible guilt of the priests. Soldiers at least have much more pressure put on them to obey their orders (and kill/torture et cetera) or else their own death, in the very near future, by MP troops, is a very real and likely possibility. I have a hard time seeing similarly dire consequences for members of the cocklick church.

 

What punishment would fit the crime, however, is still a tough question depending on the circumstances. Personally I wouldn't mind at all if they all got tortured to death slowly, but that is on a level of personal thirst for revenge. The law cannot and must not operate like that. Whether we like it or not.

 

And just as a sidenote, like I said above already... a trial is always needed, in both cases. It's the "what happens in that trial" and the possible outcome where the questions arise.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks everyone for sharing your opinions and values on this topic. It helps clarify some issues for me and bring some thing into focus.