Demjanjuk - guilty or not guilty?

[Chakravartin]

rjmacs wrote: What i think is that when we focus the entire moral evaluation on the individual, we lose sight of the part of this evil that was collective.

Focusing on the "collective" is unambiguously wrong.

Individuals made the decisions to murder millions of people. Individuals carried out those orders.

Adults, Mentally competent adults. Who murdered people with callous disregard.

rjmacs wrote: good, moral, conscience-driven people - could become butchers...

No. They can't. People of conscience stand up and do what's right. That's kind of the definition.

You may not think that you're excusing the behavior of Nazi murderers but all that you seem to be doing in this thread is trying to find excuses for them by pressing the idea that they were motivated by a sick society.

That's simply wrongheaded and reprehensible. It obviates the concepts of sentience and free will.

German society didn't send millions of people to the gas chambers and wage a bloody war across Europe. People did.

[rjmacs]

Chakravartin wrote:
People of conscience stand up and do what's right. That's kind of the definition.

So, the German people were clearly not people of conscience, right? How did an entire nation of people come to be amoral? I haven't read that the Nazis were constantly mowing down waves of conscientious citizens who stood up by the millions to decry the Reich.

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
Every single man or woman who participated in the Holocaust made an individual choice. I would excuse children and the mentally challenged, but that's it.
. . .
The sad fact remains that the majority CHOSE to remain silent and yes ACCEPTED what was happening to the Jews and other people in their country.

So....

rjmacs wrote:
Are most guilty of accessory to murder? Are they all guilty of genocide? Ought they all face prosecution?

[Chakravartin]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Chakravartin]
People of conscience stand up and do what's right. That's kind of the definition.

So, the German people were clearly not people of conscience, right?
The ones who did not stand up to the Nazi regime were not people of conscience.

But as Grace wrote, there were people who did stand up and your attitude is very disrespectful towards them and the sacrifices that they made.

[Grace62]

From the Nuremberg trials:

...defendant Albert Speer, Hitler's war production minister, said, "This trial is necessary. There is a shared responsibility for such horrible crimes even in an authoritarian state."

[rjmacs]

Chakravartin wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=Chakravartin]
People of conscience stand up and do what's right. That's kind of the definition.

So, the German people were clearly not people of conscience, right?
The ones who did not stand up to the Nazi regime were not people of conscience.

But as Grace wrote, there were people who did stand up and your attitude is very disrespectful towards them and the sacrifices that they made.
Umm....not so.

rjmacs wrote:
I applaud those very few Germans who managed to resist totalitarianism

Also, Grace62's comments indicated that most of those who did stand up didn't pay a price. Since you brought it up, what is the sacrifice i'm allegedly disrespecting?

Grace62 wrote:
However, research has shown that for the majority of Germans who simply made it known that they disagreed with the Nazi's, NOTHING happened to them.

You haven't addressed my question about how a nation of Germans came to lack conscience. Or does that not really matter?

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
From the Nuremberg trials:

...defendant Albert Speer, Hitler's war production minister, said, "This trial is necessary. There is a shared responsibility for such horrible crimes even in an authoritarian state."

I completely and totally agree. I haven't said anything to indicate otherwise. You can hold BOTH individuals AND a society responsible for acts of horror. It's not EITHER/OR.

You still haven't answered my question about whether German citizens who stayed silent as the Holocaust was carried out are accessories to murder? Are they all guilty of genocide? Ought they all face prosecution?

[Grace62]

rj lets be clear, I don't think you are sympathetic to Nazis in any way!! To me though it seems important to hold people accountable, as individuals.

I don't think anyone here nor anywhere can answer with certainty the question of how so many people came to lack conscience. We need to remember that it wasn't only Germans who aided the Nazis.
You could look at many things in Germany though:
*a psychologically damaged people following their WWI loss
*anti-semitism
*Complicity from the largest church organizations
*dire economic circumstances
*misguided national pride
*really bad leadership (understatement of the century)
etc....lots of things

We could have a similar discussion about the institution of slavery.


We can only look at what happened and try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Of course there has been other genocide in the world since 1945 and sometimes it is stopped, other times not. The fact is we are humans who make mistakes and do wrong all over the spectrum, all the time. Most of our individual wrongs will be forgotten, but sometimes wrongs are so wrong that they walk into history called a "Holocaust."

[Grace62]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
From the Nuremberg trials:

...defendant Albert Speer, Hitler's war production minister, said, "This trial is necessary. There is a shared responsibility for such horrible crimes even in an authoritarian state."

I completely and totally agree. I haven't said anything to indicate otherwise. You can hold BOTH individuals AND a society responsible for acts of horror. It's not EITHER/OR.

You still haven't answered my question about whether German citizens who stayed silent as the Holocaust was carried out are accessories to murder? Are they all guilty of genocide? Ought they all face prosecution?
Can you give me a specific example of a person still alive whose participation level you think makes them a candidate for war crimes trial? What standard of participation are you using? There were some pretty clear standards set by Nuremberg, I think. most of those people have either died or disappeared, but as found they are tried, and I think that's fair.

[August West]

You are using the wrong definition of "strawman."

wiki wrote:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

rjmacs wrote:
I also don't think there's anything morally ambiguous about genocide or mass slaughter. However, our legal system is adept at holding individuals responsible but remarkably poor at bearing witness to systems that twist people into executioners.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this forum.

So, you kill 30,000 people and then you ask for clemency because "the system" made you do it.

Seriously?

Your buddies ran away, but you kept going. Killing them by the hundreds. Men, women and children.

The remains are being scavenged for the gold from their teeth. Your bosses are making soap and buttons from those people's fat and bones and you never questioned that? Never thought to stop.

Because someone told you that it was okay.

This is not the story of some kid raised in a basement and never learning how to behave like a civilized person. This was an adult who chose to murder those people and then chose to run away from justice.

But you'd forgive him because he wasn't responsible for his actions?

Bullsh!t.

"I was just following orders" is not an excuse for genocide.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2011 11:28AM by Chakravartin.

Please explain to me how rjmacs comment on the legal system became an endorsement for the forgiveness of Nazi war crimes. You misrepresented his position in a classic strawman fallacy.