Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Should Eichmann Have Been Executed?

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,968
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,414
    Rep Power
    66
    Absolutely, what is your point?

    Seward (or Blair? I don't remember) to Stanton: If the cause is lost, we will hang.
    Stanton: If the cause is lost, I don't want to live.

    When one is animated by righteousness, one accepts the costs. When good regimes go down, you don't see the leaders fleeing like rats. They fight til the end. Nazi Germany was not such a regime.

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,094
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,070
    Rep Power
    63
    The point being that I think that war crimes trials as they were conducted were highly hypocritical. Leaders of both sides oversaw mass slaughter of innocent civilians. The leaders of the winning side tried the losers for slaughtering Jews and justify their own actions as only slaughtering nasty old 'kraut' and 'Nip' civilians, not really fully humans that deserve consideration.

    As I said, war itself is an atrocity against humanity... but, unfortunately, sometimes preferable to the alternative.

    ETA:
    And I disagree with you about leaders of "good regimes". The leadership of both sides think they are fighting for 'righteousness causes' or they wouldn't be fighting.

    Then it is the winner that writes the history and it is that history that defines which was the 'good regime'.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 09-10-2019 at 07:14 PM.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,960
    Rep Power
    12
    Well that is the question. The Geneva Cobventions formed mass madern slaughter with machine guns into a rule based game. Kill as many as you can but do not kill prisoners.

    Curtis Lemay who orchestrated the firebombingh of Japan said if the war had gone the oter way he waould be tried as a war criminal.

    The Brits firebombed Germany in retaliation for bombing British civilians.

    The question is what are fighting for.

    The Japanese Emperor was spared execution because they thought he was needed for post war Japanese stability.

    The Nazis along with a large number of the German population supported genocide of Jews along with others deemed undesirables. No one was going to allow extradition to Israel. Anti semitism did not disappear with the Nazi defeat.

    If I were an Israeli I would want to execute any Nazi associated with the genocide. IMO they would be justified.

  4. Top | #14
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    24,244
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,717
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    War is an atrocity against humanity participated in by both the victor and the vanquished. Unfortunately, war is sometimes preferable to the alternative. War crime trials are a method for the victor to kill some of the vanquished that they were unable to kill during the war.
    I don't think you understand the engineering that need to be performed to pull off the Holocaust and that the Jewish and Gypsies weren't Axis or Allies, they were civilians who were murdered while millions were tortured to 'purify' the human race's genetics so everyone had blonde hair and blue eyes like Hitler.

    The Germans and Japanese civilians died in large part because their leaders didn't surrender when the writing was on the wall... and poetically suffered in kind with those tortured and murdered by their armies.

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,094
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,070
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Well that is the question. The Geneva Cobventions formed mass madern slaughter with machine guns into a rule based game. Kill as many as you can but do not kill prisoners.
    ... or civilians.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,960
    Rep Power
    12
    One perspective was the question of whether citizens in a democracy would fight. Until the end reposts of American casualties were highly censored in the Pacific out of fear of fueling the anti war movement in the USA.

    In Mein Kempf Hitler wrote war is a natural human state.

    We see it in chimps. Troup[s periodically make war on others.

    Modern history shows any form of pacifism the door to dictatorship. The appeasement of Hitler. Today the lack of a strong position against Russian aggression. A weak NATO would most certainly lead to a Russian incursion into states like Poland.

    In WWII Gandhi proposed the Allies disarm themselves in Europe and defeat the Nazis with passive resistance. It would have been a slaughter.

    Here in the USA current conflicts are tested by politicians and the media like a college football game.

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    1,801
    Archived
    4,109
    Total Posts
    5,910
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post

    I’m not saying he wasn’t an evil son of a bitch, but many participants in the Wannsee Conference weren’t executed. In fact, a good example is Otto Hoffman [url] who was head of the SS race and resettlement office. He was sentenced to 25 years but served only 6.

    Gerhard Klopfer was another participant and he was never charged with any crimes. Neither was Georg Leibbrandt. And Eichmann had no policy role in the conference unlike others who got away with it.

    In fact, only one other participant of the Wansee Conference was executed, although Heydrich and Freisler most certainly would have had they survived the war.

    My point isn’t that he shouldn’t have been punished, but that his execution may not be justifiable in light of others involvement who never much more than a few years punishment.

    SLD
    It's not that he was a participant. He was the implementer.
    No. Heydrich was the implementer. Eichmann attended, but did not participate in the discussion. He was just organizing the meeting logistics as Heydrich's deputy. Heydrich definitely would have hung. But Czech resistance fighters got him first.

    SLD

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,968
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,414
    Rep Power
    66
    And after Heydrich died, Eichmann was the implementer!

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    1,801
    Archived
    4,109
    Total Posts
    5,910
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
    And after Heydrich died, Eichmann was the implementer!
    No. Ernst Kaltenbrunner took over most of Heydrich's duties with respect to implementing the holocaust. Heydrich was a 3 star general equivalent, as was Kaltenbrunner. Eichmann was merely a Lieutenant Colonel.

    SLD

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,968
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,414
    Rep Power
    66
    The evidence presented at the trial stands: regardless of his rank, Eichmann was giving orders on his own responsibility. Or do you regard his trial as being unfair? Why would that be?

    How many deaths does one have to be responsible for before the death penalty is appropriate? No one is trying to pin the whole holocaust on him. The question is, did he have a role in implementing it? (yes). Did he do so on his own initiative and responsibility? (yes) Was he aware of his responsibility and culpability? (yes) And did his actions directly lead to deaths? (yes)

    What is your basis for defending him? That a lieutenant colonel isn't high enough a rank not to be responsible? That's simply naive. Qaddaffi was just a colonel when he overthrew the government of libya. Plenty of massacres throughout history were ordered by men of lesser rank. Death camps were commanded by captains or majors, are you claiming they weren't responsible? People in responsible positions in military bureaucracies are often of relatively low rank vis-a-vis field officers, but have greater relative power. Young, low ranking, fanatical nazis like Eichmann were put in charge of these operations, for the express purpose of taking it out of the hands of more traditional, older, higher ranked officers, who might have a different perspective and qualms about the task.

    The question was whether he knowingly gave orders under his own responsibility, and this was adequately proven at his trial.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •