GUILTY Germany - Woman, 95, Indicted on 10,000 Counts, Accessory to Murder, 1943-1945 Nazi Camp, 5 Feb 2021

[Vern]

Civilians were not protected under the Geneva Conventions until 1949, after WW2. From 1929 til 1949, the Hague/Geneva Conventions protected soldiers only.

Great point when addressing My Lai. Let's set aside the numerous carpet bombings of Hanoi, Napalm drops where thousands of innocent civilians were killed illegally under the Geneva Conventions, without prosecution. The entire Charlie Company that murdered over 500 women, children, and babies, ("just following orders") were either acquitted or had their cases dismissed. They weren't secretaries sitting behind a typewriter, they were the ones doing the murdering. Lt. Calley, who was the one giving the orders was given life in prison, yet served only 4 months in the stockade.

If you were to compare, and this women is found guilty, what do you think her sentence should be?

"Deliberate targeting" - it's in my post. Your post is trying to make a comparison of apples and oranges.

Carpet bombings etc are exactly why smart bomb development has been what it is. Helps to dispel the other old argument that, "I wasn't deliberately targeting civilians, I was aiming for the milk factory where they are actually making bombs; anybody else killed was simply 'collateral damage'". (GW1 anyone?)

But for crimes that were committed when she was 17, 18 & 19 years old, this woman will be treated in the juvenile court. She'll walk away fine.

Oh, and BTW on the rest of your stuff, only the US believes that it does a good job trying it's war criminals. And make no mistake that they've had many of these go ignored/unpunished. Their last POTUS just pardoned some of them. Disgusting. That's too bad, because it is exactly those kind of misdeeds and lack of accountability for those who commit them. And then wonder why the rest of the world hates to see you come in and "help".

Thankfully, the war criminals that Calley et al were are also in the extremely small minority. Not so with the Nazis.

I brought up My Lai because there were charges in the case - a rarity in the US, but also a case most of them immediately know of. That doesn't mean I agree with the lack of prosecution and lack of truly just punishment for those involved. You'll not get me backing them on that front.

 

[Vern]

A shooting war? If I remember right, the US had Fighter Jets, Bombers, Helicopters, and superior artillery. The North Vietnamese had Bamboo shoots, booby traps, and weapons they'd collect from the Americans, overall. True, they had SAM's and AK47's but I wouldn't say both sides had a fighting chance as far as weapons go. They had will, and knowledge of the land, and that was an advantage.
You're right though, the Jews had no chance at all.

Unconventional warfare. Same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc.
Conventional Warfare = Conventional armies using conventional tactics and weapons in an open confrontation between two defined and recognizable forces that are targeting each other.

Vietnam certainly was not a "conventional war". It was unconventional warfare whereby modern arms and tactics don't really count for much. And despite their apparent 'inferiority', the common viewpoint (outside of the US) is that the NVA won this war despite the apparent overwhelming superiority of the US' weapons etc.

Problem is, there are 9 Principles of War and the US neglected numerous of those. And, the NVA were held to the standards of none of them.

 

[Filly]

Interestingly, the first mass transport to Auschwitz were not Jews, but a group of 748 Polish political prisoners and Resistance members, and most of them were Catholics.
First mass transport to Auschwitz concentration camp - Wikipedia

Also a thanks from me on history lesson. Although THIS I knew from a friend of Polish descent who never ceases to remind me.

95? German genetics. An elderly quiet man lived atop a bakery within blocks of me. Next thing ya know they found him and took him back to the Fatherland to be tried for war crimes or jog his memory.

 

[Vern]

Also a thanks from me on history lesson. Although THIS I knew from a friend of Polish descent who never ceases to remind me.

95? German genetics. An elderly quiet man lived atop a bakery within blocks of me. Next thing ya know they found him and took him back to the Fatherland to be tried for war crimes or jog his memory.

Seems fitting that genetic-DNA is also contributing to the capture and charging of many 'elders' these days for murders discussed on this site committed so many years ago.

 

[Cryptic]

If she testified in her boss' trial decades ago, they knew where to find her. So why didn't they prosecute her then?

Because German policy on prosecuting "little fish" holocaust persecutors, or this case, a little fish enabler changed drastically in recent years.

In the past, little fish persecutors were only charged if it could be proven that they had committed crimes as individuals (noted for exceptional cruelty etc). This policy then gradually changed to allow prosecutions if little fish perpetrators were directly involved in a unit whose sole purpose was murdering innocent civilians.

"Little fish" enablers such as then teenage secretaries were not charged at all. But..... my general understanding is that German courts do take into account the totality of the circumstances in "little fish" persecutor or enabler sentences.

For example, a then 17 year old Belarusan who guarded concentration camp inmates making death marches in the final weeks of the war received a symbolic sentence when defense attorneys established that he had not volunteered for atrocity prone Nazi security units in Belarus, was never in the SS, and had not even volunteered for the German military at all.

Instead, he was drafted in Germany after his anti communist parents joined a caravan following retreating Germans. After three weeks of military training that included basic German, he was assigned to a low grade "guard this and that" type unit. The unit then guarded rail bridges etc, and was then suddenly ordered to guard holocaust victims making death marches. None of the survivors indicated that the defendant had been cruel as an individual.

 

[Filly]

Such a far, far difference than the Nuremberg trials.

 

[Filly]

Guardian.com

Last year 93 year old Bruno Dey was given a suspended sentence of two years. Dey at 17 was an SS guard sent to Sutliff according to the Guardian.

Hmmmm.

 

[fred&edna]

DBM

 

[Cryptic]

(I'm sure that there were "cooperating" Poles who saw no options.)

Yes, there were. But.... Nazi racist dogma that saw Slavs as "subhuman" minimized the number of cooperating Poles and also minimized the German acceptance of the few Poles willing to actively collaborate.

Even still, a handful of Poles changed themselves into ethnic German "Volksdeutch" and served in Nazi security units implementing the holocaust. Others informed on Jews out of anti semitism or for even older human motivations such as cash and personal grudges.

But..... there are more Poles in Israel's listing of those who risked all to help Jews than any other country. Names of Righteous by Country | www.yadvashem.org

Likewise, post war Polish courts were far more likely impose death penalties on holocaust collaborating Poles (all low level flunkies) than were allied courts on Germans.

 

[drama_farmer]

The Third Reich kept so many records of their infamous exploits that all their unsavoury doings were documented. They never envisioned that they were not the superior race. MOO

Your observation can also apply to the here and now... Regarding the events of January 6. Imo

 

[Gibbo214]

A shooting war? If I remember right, the US had Fighter Jets, Bombers, Helicopters, and superior artillery. The North Vietnamese had Bamboo shoots, booby traps, and weapons they'd collect from the Americans, overall. True, they had SAM's and AK47's but I wouldn't say both sides had a fighting chance as far as weapons go. They had will, and knowledge of the land, and that was an advantage.
You're right though, the Jews had no chance at all.

And yet, the Vietnamese won.

 

[Rocky1]

"Deliberate targeting" - it's in my post. Your post is trying to make a comparison of apples and oranges.

Carpet bombings etc are exactly why smart bomb development has been what it is. Helps to dispel the other old argument that, "I wasn't deliberately targeting civilians, I was aiming for the milk factory where they are actually making bombs; anybody else killed was simply 'collateral damage'". (GW1 anyone?)

But for crimes that were committed when she was 17, 18 & 19 years old, this woman will be treated in the juvenile court. She'll walk away fine.

Oh, and BTW on the rest of your stuff, only the US believes that it does a good job trying it's war criminals. And make no mistake that they've had many of these go ignored/unpunished. Their last POTUS just pardoned some of them. Disgusting. That's too bad, because it is exactly those kind of misdeeds and lack of accountability for those who commit them. And then wonder why the rest of the world hates to see you come in and "help".

Thankfully, the war criminals that Calley et al were are also in the extremely small minority. Not so with the Nazis.

I brought up My Lai because there were charges in the case - a rarity in the US, but also a case most of them immediately know of. That doesn't mean I agree with the lack of prosecution and lack of truly just punishment for those involved. You'll not get me backing them on that front.

"Carpet bombings" have been illegal under the Geneva Conventions since 1977.

I agree. There have been many war criminals that have gone unpunished. I think Bertrand Russell would agree.

 

[Vern]

"Carpet bombings" have been illegal under the Geneva Conventions since 1977.

I agree. There have been many war criminals that have gone unpunished. I think Bertrand Russell would agree.

Indeed, but it was the blanket bombing of civilians in England, Germany, then a couple of bombs in Japan and the outcry that led the way to the onset of always attempting to minimize risk to civilians and laser, then smart bomb development and those precision weapons we see today. War is hell, but it's getting better - if you're a civilian stuck in the middle of it.

 

[Gibbo214]

Yes, there were. But.... Nazi racist dogma that saw Slavs as "subhuman" minimized the number of cooperating Poles and also minimized the German acceptance of the few Poles willing to actively collaborate.

Even still, a handful of Poles changed themselves into ethnic German "Volksdeutch" and served in Nazi security units implementing the holocaust. Others informed on Jews out of anti semitism or for even older human motivations such as cash and personal grudges.

But..... there are more Poles in Israel's listing of those who risked all to help Jews than any other country. Names of Righteous by Country | www.yadvashem.org

Likewise, post war Polish courts were far more likely impose death penalties on holocaust collaborating Poles (all low level flunkies) than were allied courts on Germans.

Denmark.
Why 90 Percent of Danish Jews Survived the Holocaust

 

[FrostOwl]

Civilians were not protected under the Geneva Conventions until 1949, after WW2. From 1929 til 1949, the Hague/Geneva Conventions protected soldiers only.

Great point when addressing My Lai. Let's set aside the numerous carpet bombings of Hanoi, Napalm drops where thousands of innocent civilians were killed illegally under the Geneva Conventions, without prosecution. The entire Charlie Company that murdered over 500 women, children, and babies, ("just following orders") were either acquitted or had their cases dismissed. They weren't secretaries sitting behind a typewriter, they were the ones doing the murdering. Lt. Calley, who was the one giving the orders was given life in prison, yet served only 4 months in the stockade.

If you were to compare, and this women is found guilty, what do you think her sentence should be?

There

Indeed, but it was the blanket bombing of civilians in England, Germany, then a couple of bombs in Japan and the outcry that led the way to the onset of always attempting to minimize risk to civilians and laser, then smart bomb development and those precision weapons we see today. War is hell, but it's getting better - if you're a civilian stuck in the middle of it.

As for civilians not protected by the Geneva Conventions, would those conventions have stopped the bombing od Dresden filled with refugees in February 1945 Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia , or the sinking of of several German ships filled with mostly refugees (and some soldiers) during the Operation Hannibal from mid-January to May 1945? Operation Hannibal - Wikipedia
Some of those ship sinkings are the worst maritime loss of life in the Baltic Sea, for example the sinking of MV Wilhelm Gustloff resulted in more than 9,500 lives, men, women, and children.
I doubt that a Geneva Convention protecting civilians would have prevented these, and similar events, as I believe these incidents were more about taking revenge by the then winning sides in the war, for the losses of life in their countries, rather than necessary "true military targets", those civilian deaths was seen as expendable losses by the winning sides.

 

[FrostOwl]

Denmark.
Why 90 Percent of Danish Jews Survived the Holocaust

The proximity to the neutral Sweden was one reason why this was a success. (And IMO that Sweden saw these Jews as Danes, rather than Jews. But until this in 1943, the Swedish efforts to act like a safe haven for Jews were minimal. En omsvängning som kom – men för sent )

An other Nordic country has an interesting history when it comes to Jews during the WWII, and that's Finland. There were not many Jewish refugees that came to Finland during the war (about 500), but only 8 were sent back to Germany in 1942, and that caused a national scandal, and no more foreign Jews were sent back.
As for Finnish Jewish citizens, they were protected during the war, and Nazi Germany was aware of that. The read about Finnish Jews during WWII is interesting. Those 22 Finnish Jews mentioned to have been murdered in the Holocaust, they all died fighting for the Finnish army.
History of the Jews in Finland - Wikipedia

 

[Vern]

There

As for civilians not protected by the Geneva Conventions, would those conventions have stopped the bombing od Dresden filled with refugees in ...

RSBM,

The Geneva Conventions don't "stop" anything. Much like having the law "thou shalt not murder" doesn't itself stop people from murdering.

What they do do is allow us the ability to hold perpetrators of these crimes accountable.

Do you think they would have prevented Adolf and his ilk from murdering SIX MILLION innocents in the time period of which you speak?

 

[Gibbo214]

RSBM,

The Geneva Conventions don't "stop" anything. Much like having the law "thou shalt not murder" doesn't itself stop people from murdering.

What they do do is allow us the ability to hold perpetrators of these crimes accountable.

Do you think they would have prevented Adolf and his ilk from murdering SIX MILLION innocents in the time period of which you speak?

Or the dropping of not one, but two bombs on Japanese cities that only contained, women, children and the elderly.
I can accept that one may have been necessary, but not two.

 

[Vern]

Or the dropping of not one, but two bombs on Japanese cities that only contained, women, children and the elderly.
I can accept that one may have been necessary, but not two.

I've already brought up the dropping of the two bombs on Japan. I'm not American, but they'd argue that both were necessary (I wouldn't and didn't however).

To be certain, long before that 4th Geneva Convention was brought into force in 1949, there had developed numerous treaties' and laws of war (now known as the Law of Armed Conflict) that held militaries to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (wear uniforms, not blend in with the non-combatants), not rape, pillage and plunder.

Generally, called "Chivalry" principles. Comes from the Martens Clause of the Hague Laws of the very late 1800s. It is exactly the clause that allowed for the prosecutions at Nuremburg because Germany had certainly proven during WW2, that "Chivalry was dead" on a wholesale scale.

So, that clause, and the actions of the Nazis, were the basis for the 4th Geneva Convention. To ensure the protection of civilians because they are always the most impacted by war and conflict.

 

[Gibbo214]

I've already brought up the dropping of the two bombs on Japan. I'm not American, but they'd argue that both were necessary (I wouldn't and didn't however).

To be certain, long before that 4th Geneva Convention was brought into force in 1949, there had developed numerous treaties' and laws of war (now known as the Law of Armed Conflict) that held militaries to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (wear uniforms, not blend in with the non-combatants), not rape, pillage and plunder.

Generally, called "Chivalry" principles. Comes from the Martens Clause of the Hague Laws of the very late 1800s. It is exactly the clause that allowed for the prosecutions at Nuremburg because Germany had certainly proven during WW2, that "Chivalry was dead" on a wholesale scale.

So, that clause, and the actions of the Nazis, were the basis for the 4th Geneva Convention. To ensure the protection of civilians because they are always the most impacted by war and conflict.

It has not stopped bombing of poor brown countries by big military machines.