Culpability of a 92 year old former sergeant

Snickers Man

Did anybody see BBC2's Newsnight last night?

Story about attempts to extradite a 92 year old Lithuanian grandfather who, so far as is known, has lived a blameless life in America for the past 60 years or so for "crimes against humanity."

His basic story is not at all unusual. He was a citizen of a small country overrun by a larger one. He joined the conquering nation's army. He was posted to a particularly tough unit which was assigned to carry out particularly harsh reprisals against an insurgency, namely the Warsaw ghetto uprising.

He was a sergeant.

Now he says that he did not take part in mass executions although his unit did. Prosecutors say his crimes are so heinous that even at this late stage of his life he must face justice.

Let's say he was in such a unit. Let's say he did massacre "insurgents" who dared to defy the authority of the occupying power. Is there any benefit to trying a doddery old man for carrying out orders (and a sergeant is WAY down the chain of command) during a well documented atrocity that took place so long ago and that he was probably powerless to prevent?

Given the atrocities that the American army has been involved with much more recently than the Warsaw ghetto uprising then I think it is reprehensible that such a lowly functionary is being pursued at this stage of his life for crimes that other much more culpable people have already been punished for.

Mick86

Snickers Man wrote: »

...Given the atrocities that the American army has been involved with much more recently ....

Bollocks.

Also there is no point in hounding 92 year olds for war crimes.

Snickers Man

Mick86 wrote: »

Bollocks.

Ever heard of My Lai?

What about the bombing of Baghdad in 1991 and 2003? How many civilians were killed there?

Manic Moran

Ever heard of My Lai?

What, and LT Calley wasn't turned in by another US soldier, arrested, and tried as a result of it?

What about the bombing of Baghdad in 1991 and 2003? How many civilians were killed there?

I don't know about the bombings campaign specifically, but it's estimated that 2,100 civilians were killed in Baghdad during the 2003 invasion from all causes. Which, frankly, isn't bad for conquering a city, and does not indicate who killed whom.

Again, I don't have the Baghdad airstrike tally for 1991, but Iraq claimed some 2,600 nationwide civilian casualties for the airstrikes.

Tally them all together, and you get about a third of the casualties from the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, another difference being that there was no indication in Iraq that anyone tried to kill civilians, whereas such is not the case in Warsaw.

As to the OP, I have no problem with the concept of the old geezer being brought in for a trial, (Hell he'll probably be dead of old age before the trial even begins!), but I would expect the trial to take into account all facts behind his situation as opposed to a simple "You were there. It was a war crime. You're guilty. You will go to jail for the rest of your.. oh.. he's had a heart attack and keeled over"

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Mick86 wrote: »

Bollocks.

Also there is no point in hounding 92 year olds for war crimes.

If you do not punish people like him then future generations won't think twice about following orders. As has been seen in many times since the end of WWII

I don't think any country has a statute of limitations on murder ?

Yes it may be necessary to turn a blind eye to genocide in the interest of peace but it should not be something that the perptrators can expect to rely on.

"those who don't understand the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them"

Tragedy

Future generations wont think twice about following orders because one in a thousand of them will escape "justice" if they somehow manage to live to 92?

Snickers Man

Manic Moran wrote: »

What, and LT Calley wasn't turned in by another US soldier, arrested, and tried as a result of it?

Yes but he was the only one, and following the personal intervention of his commander in chief (one Richard M Nixon) he ended up serving just a few months of an extremely gentle prison routine.

To liken (NB liken, not equate) the pursuit of this Lithuanian guy to Calley's case you would have to hound every US NCO that was at My Lai till his grave.

And what do you think would be the fate of a US sergeant who refused to obey orders to open fire on villagers in order to comply with precedents set at Nurnberg?


I am not so naive as to think that any army in a war fights perfectly cleanly all the time. Even Steven Ambrose, that most hagiographic of chroniclers of the US Army in World War Two doesn't hide the fact that prisoners were often shot out of hand by US troops. Nor does he hide the fact that in many cases, orders to do so were implicitly issued by their Generals. Like Maxwell Taylor urging his paratroopers before D-Day not to take any prisoners.

Patton did much the same, much more frequently.

But to hound a 92 year old NCO for his probable (minor) part in a massacre that took place 65 years ago is a perversion.

If you''re going to do it to him, why not do it to the 82nd Airborne?

Victor

Snickers Man wrote: »

Like Maxwell Taylor urging his paratroopers before D-Day not to take any prisoners.

There is a difference between (a) not taking prisoners, i.e. killing all enemy combattants on sight and (b) taking prisoners and the killing them and (c) killing civilians.

Paratroopers in particular would have a difficult time keeping prisoners, as they would have no facilities to keep them.

TerrorFirmer

Victor wrote: »

There is a difference between (a) not taking prisoners, i.e. killing all enemy combattants on sight and (b) taking prisoners and the killing them and (c) killing civilians.

Paratroopers in particular would have a difficult time keeping prisoners, as they would have no facilities to keep them.

Not really, as it's well documented that the Allies frequently took prisoners and then unofficially executed them. Especially the SS.

Even so, with regular troops, not taking prisoners can be the same as shooting them, given that that particular order meant that even enemy soldiers who surrendered and were unarmed were still shot.

By the way, this applies to Germany even more so then the Allies, just in case anyone thinks I'm engaging a particular side.

Reading the story casually about this man in particular, it's hard to know what to think. We're only getting a synopsis of something that goes very deep.

Manic Moran

Snickers Man wrote: »

Yes but he was the only one, and following the personal intervention of his commander in chief (one Richard M Nixon) he ended up serving just a few months of an extremely gentle prison routine.

That's not actually true. Nixon's involvement was solely to release him from prison pending appeal, the Army's sentence was subsequently upheld, and back to the Army's custody he went. What got Calley out after a few years of light confinement was the aftermath of a series of procedural errors by the Army which cast doubt on the fairness of his trial, with appeal judgements going to both sides, combined with a parole hearing.

Some 26 personnel were charged in total with offenses relating to My Lai. The others were either acquitted or the charges dropped for one reason or another. I have absolutely no problem with the concept of our 92 year old man being acquitted on the merits of the case, or even the charges simply being dropped after he's in for a bit of questioning. But I also have no problem with the wheels of justice actually turning in order to get that far so that he is processed, and then sent out the other end, free or otherwise. I do not believe that his presence in Warsaw, or the fact that he is being sought, translates into automatic guilt and punishment.

NTM

ejmaztec

I understand that, with regard to concentration camp medical experiments, a mysterious number of perpetrators/war criminals, were released from allied custody, in exchange for the data held re those experiments. Obviously, what was done to the "patients" was unethical in the civilised world. However, it seemed that, as the unethical experiments had been carried out, there was no reason for the allied medics not to study the results. They never had that opportunity before, and as far as I'm aware, they've never had the opportunity since.

Where does the line get drawn? Is the 92 year-old, one-time peasant with a gun, less, or more guilty than the Nazi medics who were waved off after the war?

Capt'n Midnight

ejmaztec wrote: »

I understand that, with regard to concentration camp medical experiments, a mysterious number of perpetrators/war criminals, were released from allied custody, in exchange for the data held re those experiments. Obviously, what was done to the "patients" was unethical in the civilised world. However, it seemed that, as the unethical experiments had been carried out, there was no reason for the allied medics not to study the results. They never had that opportunity before, and as far as I'm aware, they've never had the opportunity since.

Where does the line get drawn? Is the 92 year-old, one-time peasant with a gun, less, or more guilty than the Nazi medics who were waved off after the war?

You mean the antrax experiments on allied prisoners which after testing a shell exploding involved the 'sacrifice' of some of the specimens to see how far the disease had gone.

The scientific / medical community is still debating whether it's ethical to use such research. There is the other valid argument that a lot of that science wasn't done well and was done on people who were malnurished and highly stressed so the results may not be that accurate anyway.

foxshooter243

as regards war crimes look no further than iraq-they are happening as we
speak-us war criminals are killing iraqi people for the oil rights of their country, think its not true or what ,blame september 11 -there was no iraqis involved In that " ALLEGED ATTACK" .

THE MOST TECHNILOGICALLY ADVANCED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ARE KILLING PEOPLE IN THEIR MUD HUTS ! think about it.............................

FiSe

Now what's the topic, fecking Americans I mean SS, or no, Russians or was it the Nazi doctors or who are we talking about?
Love the way everything turns after first reply :rolleyes:

Thing is, if that guy is found guilty, then hang him. He did what he did and he should pay for it as the law says. Have no problem with that.
But I reckon, that he will walk free as there's no direct evidence, as I've read, to connect him directly with the killings. He was NCO in the "volunteer" SS unit, brutal and bloodthirsty as a hell. No doubt. He was cought in the middle of the road with certain death on both ends, Germans on the one, Soviets on the other. But everybody should be accountable for their behaviour, think.

Victor

HavoK wrote: »

Even so, with regular troops, not taking prisoners can be the same as shooting them, given that that particular order meant that even enemy soldiers who surrendered and were unarmed were still shot.

Unfortuneately a surrender isn't valid until it is accepted.

ejmaztec

FiSe wrote: »

Now what's the topic, fecking Americans I mean SS, or no, Russians or was it the Nazi doctors or who are we talking about?
Love the way everything turns after first reply :rolleyes:

You can't discuss an alleged war criminal without discussing war crimes.

mikemac

It's fairly pointless going after a sergeant.
If you want to find anyone culaple, then go after his superior officer, who is probably long dead.

A sergeant may be a senior NCO but overall it's not a senior position. They need to after the "bigger fish" to use a drug squad term

McArmalite

Snickers Man wrote: »

Given the atrocities that the American army has been involved with much more recently than the Warsaw ghetto uprising then I think it is reprehensible that such a lowly functionary is being pursued at this stage of his life for crimes that other much more culpable people have already been punished for.

In the words of Noam Chomsky, if every American president since WW2 was tried under the terms of the Numerberg trials - they'd be found guilty of war crimes and hung.

Snickers Man

FiSe wrote: »

Thing is, if that guy is found guilty, then hang him. He did what he did and he should pay for it as the law says. Have no problem with that.

The trouble is that whereas it is not fair to say that the Americans and British were "just as bad as the Nazis" in that neither country ever tried to blatantly wipe out an entire race of people with industrial precision*, by going after a lowly sergeant like this, you are bringing into focus the sort of crimes that the Americans and British (and others) DID participate in. Frequently.

The British, as an imperial power, often had to deal with uprisings against their rule, such as the Warsaw Ghetto revolt was. And they didn't exactly use kid gloves to put them down either. Executions, collective punishments, bombardment of civilians etc etc this was all grist to their mill and it is not seriously denied. You want to go after every British Army Sergeant who fought in Malaya or Kenya and put him on charge for crimes against humanity?

I think you've got two chances.

* and let's just for the purposes of this debate not try to equate the American suppression of the Native Indian tribes or the British development of the concept of concentration camps in South Africa with the Nazi Endlosung. It could be debated elsewhere but I think it's really off topic for this discussion. Which is really about how far down the chain of command and for how long should we pursue those suspected of individual acts of horror?

FiSe

So, what are you saying?

Tragedy

FiSe wrote: »

So, what are you saying?

That this Sergeant isnt culpable for the holocaust, just like a British Sergeant in South Africa wasnt culpable for the scorched earth policy in the Boer War.

What this man is accused of doing is putting down an uprising/revolt, the fact they're chasing him 70 years later is purely because it was Warsaw and not a thousand other towns/cities/villages(imo, correct me if im wrong!)

jmayo

So are we saying that he should be let go, if found guilty, or not tried at all because ...
a) he is now old and it took place so long ago
b) he was only a sergant and following orders
or
c) the Americans have done some bad things in Iraq and Vietnam
???

By the logic of a) General Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadžić in 40 years time or even Mengele if he were alive today would be immune since afterall they would be old.
By the logic of b) anybody that actually did the massacres of innocent civilians would ever be held accountable. Afterall they were only following orders.

As for c)
the Americans/British have done somethings that are reprehensivable but nowhere near what the Nazi war machine perpretrated and to use that as an excuse is blinkered and just shows a hatred or disklike for either party.
Should we excuse one crime because somebody else did a crime ?

And as an aside if the guy was a non-German volunteer in the SS he was no shrinking violet.
The SS were pure scum and anything they got was deserved.
More than a few of them met their ends at the hands of the Vietminh in Vietnam.

Try him and fry him if found guilty.
Think of all the lives he helped end.
They did not have the luxury of growing old, raising families and enjoying the autumn of their lives.

PS the warsaw uprising was not a normal uprising or revolt and the SS was not your normal army unit.

TerrorFirmer

jmayo wrote: »

So are we saying that he should be let go, if found guilty, or not tried at all because ...
a) he is now old and it took place so long ago
b) he was only a sergant and following orders
or
c) the Americans have done some bad things in Iraq and Vietnam
???

By the logic of a) General Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadžić in 40 years time or even Mengele if he were alive today would be immune since afterall they would be old.
By the logic of b) anybody that actually did the massacres of innocent civilians would ever be held accountable. Afterall they were only following orders.

As for c)
the Americans/British have done somethings that are reprehensivable but nowhere near what the Nazi war machine perpretrated and to use that as an excuse is blinkered and just shows a hatred or disklike for either party.
Should we excuse one crime because somebody else did a crime ?

And as an aside if the guy was a non-German volunteer in the SS he was no shrinking violet.
The SS were pure scum and anything they got was deserved.
More than a few of them met their ends at the hands of the Vietminh in Vietnam.

Try him and fry him if found guilty.
Think of all the lives he helped end.
They did not have the luxury of growing old, raising families and enjoying the autumn of their lives.

PS the warsaw uprising was not a normal uprising or revolt and the SS was not your normal army unit.

That's still biased. There's no concrete evidence suggesting he helped 'end' the many lives you're implying he did.

I have to say I somewhat side with the argument saying that it's too little too late to really bother pursuing - at worst, yes, he may have been a thug responsible for killings, but if you want to pursue a man of such low rank over killings over six decades ago, on a hypothetical basis, thousands upon thousands of American, British and German regular army units are also deserving of such punishment - after all, you said a crime is a crime, regardless of the scope, so surely you think every single person involved in an illegal/immoral killing should be prosecuted? Not to mention, that being there doesn't automatically equate to him having participated in killings....apart from the home army which could have been in the perfectly legal combat sense.

In an ideal world, sure, but...

A lot of sweeping, cliched generalizations in your post...

Think of all the lives he helped end.

The SS were pure scum

anything they got was deserved

They did not have the luxury of growing old, raising families and enjoying the autumn of their lives.

Neither did many of the SS men who were summarily executed by all Allied powers after capture and/or surrender, despite common misconception, a large bulk of them having nothing to do with atrocities. So, where's that extensive list of all those American, British, Russian soldiers and officers that were prosecuted after the war? After all, isn't a crime a crime?

Tragedy

In regards to
A)None of the people you named were footsoldiers were they? None of them even personally killed people to the best of my recollection, they just ordered it. Are you saying you have hidden information that this 92year old was in fact the secret head of the SS?

B)They were putting down a revolt/uprising against an occupying power, not massacring innocent civilians for the hell of it.

C)So everyone who was even the teeniest bit involved with the german regime should be put down like a dog because the nazis were bad, and no matter if an american in iraq goes and kills 100 civilians, he should get off scot free because the americans arent as bad as the nazis?
Sorry, but thats exactly how you worded it.

As for the SS, some battallions of the waffen ss have a pretty much unblemished record when it comes to War Crimes, were highly regarded as the best in the german army and welcomed by the foreign legion and other countries militaries after the war. No country/regime has ever been wholly evil, just as none has been whiter than white. Nothings that simple.

If you want to see irony in action, read up on Oradour-sur-Glane and the french not prosecuting alsatians because of politics

jmayo

HavoK wrote: »

That's still biased. There's no concrete evidence suggesting he helped 'end' the many lives you're implying he did.

I have to say I somewhat side with the argument saying that it's too little too late to really bother pursuing - at worst, yes, he may have been a thug responsible for killings, but if you want to pursue a man of such low rank over killings over six decades ago, on a hypothetical basis, thousands upon thousands of American, British and German regular army units are also deserving of such punishment - after all, you said a crime is a crime, regardless of the scope, so surely you think every single person involved in an illegal/immoral killing should be prosecuted? Not to mention, that being there doesn't automatically equate to him having participated in killings....apart from the home army which could have been in the perfectly legal combat sense.

In an ideal world, sure, but...

A lot of sweeping, cliched generalizations in your post...

Neither did many of the SS men who were summarily executed by all Allied powers after capture and/or surrender, despite common misconception, a large bulk of them having nothing to do with atrocities. So, where's that extensive list of all those American, British, Russian soldiers and officers that were prosecuted after the war? After all, isn't a crime a crime?

Yeah I like sweeping cliched generalisations
Most if not all of the SS were ardent Nazis (lets wipe out all the non humans ethos) so my motto would be tough sh** if they did get shot. A lot of them didn't give two cr*** when they were swaning around Europe either performing reprisals or rounding up undesirables in the name of the Fatherland and the Furher.
Of course after the war no one in German/Austria was a Nazi :rolleyes:
I recall interview with one SS soldier who actually worked in Auswitz as book keeper of sorts. He maintained he never killed anyone. I would say he may not have killed anyone, but he still aided the process.

Of course my view is politically incorrect these days.
We now believe that there should be rehabilation and they are victis as well due to some underlying cause.
Personally I would have shot every single SS or Gestapo person I would have found, if I was an Allied soldier.
Now would that have made me a Frenchman, a Pole, a Czech, a Serb, a Russian, a Dutchman, a Norwegian or a Greek ?
You tell me ?

Tragedy wrote: »

In regards to
A)None of the people you named were footsoldiers were they? None of them even personally killed people to the best of my recollection, they just ordered it. Are you saying you have hidden information that this 92year old was in fact the secret head of the SS?

B)They were putting down a revolt/uprising against an occupying power, not massacring innocent civilians for the hell of it.

C)So everyone who was even the teeniest bit involved with the german regime should be put down like a dog because the nazis were bad, and no matter if an american in iraq goes and kills 100 civilians, he should get off scot free because the americans arent as bad as the nazis?
Sorry, but thats exactly how you worded it.

As for the SS, some battallions of the waffen ss have a pretty much
unblemished record when it comes to War Crimes, were highly regarded as the best in the german army and welcomed by the foreign legion and other countries militaries after the war. No country/regime has ever been wholly evil, just as none has been whiter than white. Nothings that simple.

If you want to see irony in action, read up on Oradour-sur-Glane and the french not prosecuting alsatians because of politics

So what you are saying is it happened a long time ago so lets forget about it.
Afterall he mightn't be guilty of anything.
He was just there and it was an uprising.

If it the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, it was an uprising by prirmarily Jews that had been forced to live in a ghetto who were destined for a one way trip to Auswitz/Birkenau.
If it was the Warsaw uprising of 1944, the Germans killed far more civilans than actually armed combatants but sure they were all uprising. :rolleyes:

And anyway the crux of your argument is the Americans are bad, evil and doing awful things in Iraq so lets forget about some old guy that may or may not have killed a few people in Poland along time ago.
Is it not?

No wonder the Israelis tell us to **** off when we lecture them on how they handle the Palestines.

I don't like American foreign policy, nor that the British had for so long, but I think the Germans and their Nazi collaborators/Allies deserved everything they got/get. To excuse what members of the German military did by comparing to what Allies did is a cop out and just goes to show biased opinion.

Did I say American war crimes should go unpunished?
They should sign up to War Crimes tribunal but becuase of their power/position they can get away with it.
What Americans did in Indochina (Vietname, Laos and Cambodia) was criminal.
What they have done in Central America is criminal and disgraceful.
They have carried out atrocities in Iraq and only a few will pay just as example to keep the con going.

The Waffen SS were indeed fine soldiers, probably better than any other units. A lot of it was due fact they were so fanatical in the cause.
They also included a lot of non Germans (Ayrians) who joined for their own reasons.
This guy would be one of those.

Remember it was an SS unit that shot unarmed capture Americans in the Ardennes so after that they did not get much quarter from the Western Allies.
It was SS/Gestapo that executed the famous Great Escapers.
The Soviets would shoot any Germans given the chance since afterall their country and their people suffered extermely at their hands.
Compare treatment of capture Soviets and the treatment the captured Western allies recieved and you will see why they eit5her executed them or marched them to Siberia.

The French welcomed them into the French Foreign Legion becuase they needed soldiers to fight in Indochina to reclaim their "empire".
They welcomed them because they were good soldiers and they didn't give two craps about them, they were expendable.
There is even a story of a holocaust survivor tracking down an SS soldeir to Indochina and excuting him where he sat.
The officers did nothing becuase they knew the score.

Tragedy

Ah nevermind, I've said my piece and people can make up their own minds.

fwiw, I think you're not reading other peoples arguments properly before replying, or replying to points i/they didnt make.

silverharp

it might sound trite, but what are the chances that a soldier on either side who didn't fight a honourable war go on to live a happy life, that being said, at this stage unless a direct victim is looking for justice then it's a waste of money chasing after old men in zimmerframes.

jmayo

silverharp wrote: »

it might sound trite, but what are the chances that a soldier on either side who didn't fight a honourable war go on to live a happy life, that being said, at this stage unless a direct victim is looking for justice then it's a waste of money chasing after old men in zimmerframes.

Sure if he has zimmerframe then he should be easy to catch

I guest most of my problem is seeing being old and infirmed being used as excuse to let people off with crimes or not trying them at all.
The likes of Pinochet was given a soft time becuase he was old and sick.
He didn't give a soft time to any of the people rounded up in the national stadium. Anyway I digress.

And no I am not equating Pinochet (or our Bosnia Sebia friends that are still wandering around) to this guy. Different league. Pinochet, etc were at the top giving the orders and making the grand plans.
This guy was at bottom but still he may have been carrying out those orders with glee, like a lot of his colleagues.

The sad thing is governments chose to go after one guy or set of guys and turn a blind eye or even worse back another set.
Pol Pot was protected and aided by US and Britain because it was politically expedient in order to cosy up to China.
Klaus Barbie was affectively working for the Americans.
Hell the US used scientists that should have been convicted of war crimes.

Also something nobody mentioned is the motto "to the victors go the spoils". That also appiles to who we try for war crimes.