Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: war criminals Message-ID: <468@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 10:34:29 EST Article-I.D.: mnetor.468 Posted: Thu Apr 25 10:34:29 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 12:29:14 EST References: <5541@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 97 Summary: In article <5541@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >There is a big difference between the regular German armed forces and the >SS. The SS was responsible for the war crimes; the rest of the German >armed forces got on with the business of fighting a war. This is not to >say that *no* atrocities were commited by non-SS members, but the particular >vile horror of the haulocast was the doing of volunteers to the SS elite >who believed (or at least professed to believe) in Hitler's racist doctrine. First you gotta prove that all of the SS were responsible for the war crimes. Many of the SS regiments (eg: SS Panzers) were elite combat troops - not concentration camp guards or punishment troops. (kinda like impugning all of the Green Berets for "Tiger Cages") Germany certainly couldn't afford to use mechanized regiments for running concentration camps. In contrast, though, the forbidding of the SS lightning bolt seems reasonable - when it is used as a symbol of the denial or support of atrocities or current neo-nazi groups. [As is the swastika when used by neo-nazi's, but not in the art of BC Indians, India and China. My mother has a small silver bracelet made before the war by Indians from British Columbia. She doesn't wear it (even though the swastika is backwards) precisely because most people tend only to think of Hitler when they see it.] > >To say that the German people as a whole, or to say that all the German >soldiers are responsible for the haulocast is to slander them - and is a >form of the same ``we are human -- those monsters are not human'' dogmatic >hatred that at least contributes and may cause such atrocities in the first >place. However, to say that volunteers to the SS are in some way not >responsible for their actions makes a mockery of the notion of personal >responsibility. To be 16 and join the German airforce in time of war -- >understandable. To be 16 and to join the SS? Barely understandable and >not to be condoned or excused. Secondly, to be 16 and join the SS? What would a 16 year old (or most other German citizenry) have known about the SS? That they were elite troops? Yes. That they (amongst other things) ran concentration camps and what was happening in them? No. The "fact" of Hitler's "Final Solution" was one of the best-kept secrets of the war. Except for some rumors that even the Allies considered to be too horrible to be true, the only people who knew about it were: 1) dead, or 2) in a concentration camp, or 3) orchestrating the whole mess, or 4) unable to speak (or refuse to act) on pain of death. (By the time a volunteer SS soldier found out what was really going on it was too late to back out) Convict the people under "3", but not in "4" - Even you, Laura, should agree with that (considering your comments in the Life-boat discussions in net.flame). When it comes down to a decision between "me" or "you" (where you have no other alternative) common law and justice does not expect you to commit suicide. However, those who do are cannonized. A lot of Germans did choose suicide (even in the SS). (eg: the various failed attempts at the assassination of Hitler) There is an extremely good book on the subject of me versus you (though it has no connection with WW II) called "Covenant with Death". Though a work of fiction, it has a very good discussion on this topic w.r.t. morals, justice and the law. [ The plot line was basically that a man was wrongly convicted of murder. At the execution the man managed to save himself by pushing the hangman off the scaffold (who died in the fall). Shortly afterwards the real murderer confessed, and the Judge had to make some sort of decision w.r.t. the hangman's death. It sounds like clear-cut self-defence doesn't it? Well, it wasn't, (partially because the execution was state-condoned so normal rules of intent on the part of the hangman didn't apply) but I'm not sure that I can explain it well enough here. Try reading the book (or see the movie, but the title is different) - the summation goes far beyond the specific case. Sorry, I forget the author's name. ] > >Laura Creighton --this account will be gone by the time you read this note... >utzoo!laura Regardless of any remarks made by anyone (Nuremburg, Time magazine etc.), the guilt of any member of the SS *must* be determined individually on a case-by-case basis. Both our law and and natural justice make that essential. Thus, I feel that the brouhaha about Reagan's visit to a cemetary that contains (in addition to others) some SS dead to be inappropriate. In no way could Reagan's visit (in the absence of proof to the contrary) be construed as any kind of support of the atrocities of WW II. After all, he isn't specifically visiting the SS dead is he? However, his avoidance of the concentration camps may be such. Maybe he would do better to avoid both. [ I don't like Ronnie, but the uproar is inappropriate ] -- Help save Canadian Beavers from being Sterilized! Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321