
94-year-old former guard at the Auschwitz death camp sentenced - enitihas
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36560416
======
venomsnake
> Grudda sentenced Hanning, who was 23 when he started two years of work at
> the concentration camp in 1942, to five years jail for being an accessory to
> murder of 170,000 people.

How is 15 minutes of jail time per murder just?

Can the collective HN wisdom also help me understand what is a 23 years old
(as he was in 1942) supposed to do in the situation and stop the atrocities?

~~~
onion2k
_Can the collective HN wisdom also help me understand what is a 23 years old
(as he was in 1942) supposed to do in the situation and stop the atrocities?_

There's nothing he could have done to stop the atrocities, but he could have
said no to having a part in them himself. That would have meant facing the
death penalty for subversion[1], but there were Germans who did say no, and
were executed.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrkraftzersetzung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrkraftzersetzung)

~~~
mmrezaie
But wouldn't the decision between life and death take some of the
responsibility of that person. For example basing on a fact that I have been
forced or I would have been killed. I am just curious!

Also, it is amazing how words in Deutsch become so long. It is hard for my
eyes to detect the parts.

------
akras14
Does anybody know why he only now went to trial?

~~~
lucozade
Up until about ten years ago, the general approach was to find and prosecute
those who were responsible for the Holocaust i.e. made decisions that caused
or prolonged it, or those who actively participated in atrocities.

For example, the Eichmann trial was controversial at the time because he was
involved in transport and not the camps directly even though he was a colonel
(it was also controversial for a number of other reasons).

That approach changed to include those who were present but with no evidence
of direct involvement. The Demjanjuk conviction gave confidence to prosecutors
that this was a viable strategy. Given the age of the defendants, there's been
a certain amount of urgency to accelerate these prosecutions.

I have some reservations about this change of tack. It plays to a narrative
that the prosecutions are vindictive and a sign of desperation. With the
spread of neo-Nazism in Europe, making ex-Nazis and SS appear as victims seems
very risky to me.

------
zkett
what prompted/drove the trial? a local prosecutor/official, public comments by
the defendant? not trying to imply it should not have taken place, merely
curious about the circumstance.

~~~
grahamel
The article says "That changed with the 2011 conviction of John Demjanjuk,
when a judge concluded that his activities as a camp worker in Nazi-occupied
Poland amounted to complicity in mass murder."

Also in a Guardian article[1] "The prosecution’s case has been built on the
premise that, however low his rank, Hanning’s presence at Auschwitz made him
part of the Nazi death machine and that he should therefore share
responsibility for the Holocaust"

And from a Time article[2] it says he was "initially assigned to register work
details, away from the killing, but he later took a post in the guard tower"
and "In his statement in court, Hanning did not describe witnessing selections
or any personal involvement in killing. But he did admit to knowing about it.
"

[1][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/17/auschwitz-
guar...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/17/auschwitz-guard-set-to-
hear-verdict-in-holocaust-trial)

[2][http://time.com/nazi-trials/](http://time.com/nazi-trials/)

