I kept seeing this on MSN, and it kinda bugged me. Anyways, to sum it up, "An Associated Press investigation found that Karkoc served as a top commander in the Ukrainian Self-Defense Legion during WWII. The unit is accused of wartime atrocities, including the burning of villages filled with women and children" -MSN
Read the article, its interesting. I wasn't aware people were still prosecuting ex Nazis. The man is 94 years old, and lives in Minneapolis. I want to know your opinions on this matter. Should he be prosecuted for crimes that was committed over 70 years ago?
You didn't give justice to my point which is summed up as: Punishment is optional, acquittal is not. We can choose not to punish him, because after all, there's no point in doing so to achieve the traditional purpose of punishing a criminal, a) Set an example b) An eye for an eye, and c) To protect people. The Nazi have been tainted beyond salvation, the man is too old and infirm ed to commit more crime.
You mean I human being can be trialed, be guilty of a crime, and not have a sentence? I had no idea something like this was possibly. If this is the case, then I guess my views have changed. If he can be found guilty and not be punishment then that would be a honorable act of the law. But I'm not going to put my faith into that just yet.
Punishment is an option. Nazi criminals have often been found guilty, but not sent to jail, such as Maurice Papon, who was released from French prison after being deemed too old and sick to serve his 10-year sentence. The Lithuanian Nazi collaborator, Algimantas Dailide, was convicted in 2006 but didn't get a jail term since he was 'no longer a threat to society.'. If punishment no longer serves the purpose it was intended for, it is up for discussion whether to scrape it or not. BUT it isn't a question at all whether to judge this man not guilty if enough evidence is found. A crime is a crime.
I agree with all of that, but the French and United States are two different things. France may be a Democracy just like the U.S but the law is approach in two different ways, while fallowing under the same international principle. I do not think that the United States government is going to let this man loose even at his age.
Mercy is indeed a quality not often shown, as stated above, when it comes to dealing punishment; however, mercy should not be a factor in deeming whether a person is guilty of a crime or not.
All human relations are like this. A child can accidentally hurt someone, and while he or she did so by accident someone was hurt. I'm just saying that if he is in fact innocent and was blackmailed into this situation, or worse, he shouldn't be punished. The only reason I believed he should be acquitted was because I had no idea that committing a crime can go unpunished.
From here on out 'P' will be the prosecutor and 'N' will be the Nazi. P: So you were the one that pulled the lever that gassed the Jews? N: Yes sir P: Why did you do it? N: I was ordered to sir. P: And did you have a choice in following these orders? N: No sir. P: And what would have happened if you had disobeyed these orders? N: My family and I would have been killed sir. I was just protecting those I loved.
This is the exact point I am trying to make. He may have become a Nazi because his families safety was at stake. The Nazi's didn't give both the German or other European cultures a choice when the Nazi's decided to make a move. It's a common fact.
Even Wernher Von Braun didn't support the Nazi's use of his V-2 rockets. He said himself that the rockets flight was excellent yet it's use was all wrong. Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler were the monsters of Nazism. What the Nazi soldiers and generals did was through sheer force. Some believed in the Aryan Race, yes, but others never wanted to hurt anybody.
You mean I human being can be trialed, be guilty of a crime, and not have a sentence? I had no idea something like this was possibly. If this is the case, then I guess my views have changed. If he can be found guilty and not be punishment then that would be a honorable act of the law. But I'm not going to put my faith into that just yet.
Yes you can, due to mitigating factors like old age. Has happened before as detailed in my previous post.
I agree with all of that, but the French and United States are two different things. France may be a Democracy just like the U.S but the law is approach in two different ways, while fallowing under the same international principle. I do not think that the United States government is going to let this man loose even at his age.
Whilst the laws of each country differs on punishment and whether the country places more emphasis on civil or common law, it would not be wholly unsafe to opine that the French and US system have more in common than not. Historically, the US has indeed been harsher on ex-Nazi leaders than France, but that doesn't derail the process in my opinion. Criminals are still criminals, and the basic message every ruling passed should establish is that; the law is not to be trifled with, and the authorities will take every possible measure against criminals.
All human relations are like this. A child can accidentally hurt someone, and while he or she did so by accident someone was hurt. I'm just saying that if he is in fact innocent and was blackmailed into this situation, or worse, he shouldn't be punished. The only reason I believed he should be acquitted was because I had no idea that committing a crime can go unpunished.
Every rests on the assumption that enough evidence can be found for him to be charged, if not, then by all means he should be ruled innocent.
Everything in the discussion* rests on the assumption that enough evidence can be found for him to be charged, if not, then by all means he should be ruled innocent.
Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler were the monsters of Nazism. Maybe to us, but they were very held up and respected men. The people of Germany loved them. People simply teach us that they were evil so that we wouldn't hold him up as an icon and start killing Jews. I'm not defending his actions, but I'm just saying that he did it for his race and country. People of Germany Cheered and supported him.
Maybe to us, but they were very held up and respected men. The people of Germany loved them. People simply teach us that they were evil so that we wouldn't hold him up as an icon and start killing Jews. I'm not defending his actions, but I'm just saying that he did it for his race and country. People of Germany Cheered and supported him.
The people of Germany loved him....partially. He was loved by large sections, yet it's worth noting that he never won more than 40% in an election. Thereafter, his popularity did rise, but only because of short term economic measures and the military buildup to bolster the former, whilst papering thinly over the cracks. What about the Jews, the gypsies, the physically and mentally disabled, the opposition members who were hunted down like they were animals? Are such significant groups to be ignored?
He did it for a race....that incongruous statement is in itself a show of Hitler's titanic evil, and an unwitting confirmation on your part of that malevolence. It is racism in its purest, most refined form, a blatant prejudice and bigotry that ended in blood and death. There is nothing redeeming of him in the grand plot of history.
We are taught that they are evil, so that no one will ever perpetuate such a genocide. That is not something that even needs to be considered for the merest moment of time, unless you condone massacre based on skin colour. You comment on the way Nazis are portrayed in our education system as if such unfavourable light cast upon them is abhorrent and inaccurate. That is disturbing on the highest scale.
What about the Jews, the gypsies, the physically and mentally disabled, the opposition members who were hunted down like they were animals? Are such significant groups to be ignored?
It was wrong, I'm not saying it wasn't, but everyone does wrong. Spartans threw their handicap babies to their death, which only made them stronger. It was wrong, but it made a stronger nation. People lack morals, back then, and now. I could swear that we already went over the Christian genocides.
He did it for a race....that incongruous statement is in itself a show of Hitler's titanic evil, and an unwitting confirmation on your part of that malevolence. It is racism in its purest, most refined form, a blatant prejudice and bigotry that ended in blood and death. There is nothing redeeming of him in the grand plot of history.
As you all may know, I'm extremely racist, yet I hold it back on here. I respect a man who holds his race so high that he fights to keep it high.
It was wrong, I'm not saying it wasn't, but everyone does wrong. Spartans threw their handicap babies to their death, which only made them stronger. It was wrong, but it made a stronger nation. People lack morals, back then, and now. I could swear that we already went over the Christian genocides.
Did Germany come out of WWII stronger? Arguably no. It became a splintered country, straddled across two hostile camps, with a divided people housed in a capital that was itself split in half.
The disheartening lack of morals of some portions of humanity, the reason that such incidents will happen no matter what, and the weak argument that gaining strength (at such terrible cost) are arguments that do not hold water when it comes to such issues. There is no use defending Nazism as an ideology.
It is extremely contradictory that you claim to respect a man who holds his race high, yet at the same time look down upon him. Within every racist is the fearful urge to be the superior, to actively but erroneously attempt to triumph over a set of stereotypes flimsily constructed over an actual group, due to his/her own internal psychological insecurities.
Yes you can, due to mitigating factors like old age. Has happened before as detailed in my previous post.
the only times i know of it happens is when they have been longer (or just as long) in pre-arrest. as the maximum initial sentence can be. (might check that link later)
I do not think that the United States government is going to let this man loose even at his age.
it would be hypocritical of them to not do it. remember last year that that guy from the uk was summoned befor a american judge. while he has never been in the usa. and what he did was perfectly legal to do in the uk. where he was and did it. and still he is taken to a usa prison.
more wrong then that, can't be. and now they want to protect a SS leader to be convicted for his crimes? IDIOTS!!
Everything in the discussion* rests on the assumption that enough evidence can be found for him to be charged, if not, then by all means he should be ruled innocent.
+1
but I'm just saying that he did it for his race and country. People of Germany Cheered and supported him.
hitlers "übermensch" was the "aryan race." thats the scandinavian race. blue eye's blond hair.. you know.(i hope) he himself was not aryan. he had blue eye's but not blond hair. and neither does most of the germans. also, he was austrian not german. xD
I'm extremely racist,
didn't know, but it doesn't surprise me the slightest bit.
There is no use defending Nazism as an ideology.
in some countries you will end up in jail for that. better locking away such mind then getting a possibility 3rd war. is their idea. (and right they are.)
the only times i know of it happens is when they have been longer (or just as long) in pre-arrest. as the maximum initial sentence can be. (might check that link later)
Whilst the laws of each country differs on punishment and whether the country places more emphasis on civil or common law, it would not be wholly unsafe to opine that the French and US system have more in common than not. Historically, the US has indeed been harsher on ex-Nazi leaders than France, but that doesn't derail the process in my opinion. Criminals are still criminals, and the basic message every ruling passed should establish is that; the law is not to be trifled with, and the authorities will take every possible measure against criminals.
Yes, I believe that criminals should be punished as well. However, I don't believe that the law is more powerful then human instinct. Naturally, I am going to feel bad. And with that, I choose my instinct over the law because in a sense instinct is the laws in which your mind naturally responds too. He can be trialed and deemed a criminal, that's fine, but if he is punished for something that he may have been forced into I believe that law should bend in a way. That or prepare for cases like that.
Maybe to us, but they were very held up and respected men. The people of Germany loved them. People simply teach us that they were evil so that we wouldn't hold him up as an icon and start killing Jews.
No, that is not why. You don't need to be taught to know that what he did was evil. They tell you what he did, you come up with you're own decision. And the people of Germany liked hm because he restored order when none existed anymore. And he was getting revenge that the people of Germany lusted for. But the German people didn't want to be under control by the way the Nazi's went about it.
While the German people wished harm to the jewish people, at the time, they didn't want the Holocaust. No one wanted it but the Nazi's.
As you all may know, I'm extremely racist, yet I hold it back on here. I respect a man who holds his race so high that he fights to keep it high.
There are no race differences in humanity.
also, he was austrian not german. xD
Most people over look this factor saying that some Germans are Nazi's, when in fact, one of the founders of it was indeed Austrian.
Yes, I believe that criminals should be punished as well. However, I don't believe that the law is more powerful then human instinct. Naturally, I am going to feel bad. And with that, I choose my instinct over the law because in a sense instinct is the laws in which your mind naturally responds too. He can be trialed and deemed a criminal, that's fine, but if he is punished for something that he may have been forced into I believe that law should bend in a way. That or prepare for cases like that.
The base conundrum with that is that feelings/instincts/emotions vary wildly between people. The law itself is as devoid as possible (or so we trust and hope) of such subjective factors that will sway the outcome unfairly.
Most people over look this factor saying that some Germans are Nazi's, when in fact, one of the founders of it was indeed Austrian.
This is one of the better known discrepancies about Hitler. Hitler was indeed Austrian, in the sense that he was a citizen of the state of Austria-Hungary, and not of the German Empire. However, he was by all accounts (dodging nasty rumors about being fractionally Jewish), an ethnic German, and that's all that matters. Austria Hungary was a ethnically varied place, with an equally cosmopolitan capital city, and the Germans were one of the more significant groups there.
