Nazi prison guard found living in U.K.

[nate1865]

The fact he hid his past from those he knew says something.

Justice needs to be done. The blood of MILLIONS of Jewish men, women and children cry out for it. Prosecute him if there's cause and see if he's guilty and treat him as you would a younger man.

It is good because it sends a message to those that would do such evil in the future.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wrong... HERE is the oath they took. NOTHING about "being told they were joining to kill the subhumans".

The oath he took was to obey Adolf Hitler.

Eidformel der Schutzstaffel (in English) read: "I vow to Adolf Hitler imperturbable loyalty . I vow to him and to the leaders, that he sets for me, absolute allegiance. Hail Victory!"

Adolph Hitler told him and SS training was quite clear that he was there to kill the subhumans. Those of Jewish ancestry were thrown out of the SS (making Sepp Dietrich very angry). In training they were taught that they were the master race and killing the subhumans was not a crime.

Only the higher ups IN THE NAZI LEADERSHIP knew about the formation of the Final Solution BEFORE the war started

No, everyone in Germany saw it coming. It's not like the Nazi hid anything.

Whether he was Waffen SS or Totenkopfverbande it matters not what he knew before the war. What do you think he saw every single day of duty?

Making blanket statements about the men who joined and served in the SS is convienient looking back 70 years.

No man, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Estonian, Croatian, Italian joined the SS not knowing what their mission was. The death head gang was very clear about its role in genocide and very proud of it.

 

[firehawk1]

Here is evidence that the "average" member of the SS did NOT know of the Final Solution when a number of them joined.

When did Hitler decide on the Final Solution?

I am in no way denying that apparently from 12/41 more and more of them knew what was going on. But in no way did ALL know what they had got themselves into when they joined.

 

[techres]

You are what you do when it counts.

You pay, for what you did, period.

 

[joslar15]

Documents obtained by a researcher show that Mr Huryn served at Trawniki. They also appear to prove he joined an SS battalion that committed atrocities against Polish civilians in 1944 and 1945.

Frail and 90 years old doesn't excuse his actions. It's very likely he has blood on his hands and should face the music.

 

[firehawk1]

Here's the extent of my religion on INGO,

"Revenge is MINE saith the Lord". "He who is WITHOUT sin cast the first stone".

This all happened 70 + years ago. It is NOT proven this man was involved in ANY murder. No one knows IF he shot, gassed, or incenerated anyone. Where is your almighty Constitution/Bill of Rights at now? Several here have already convicted him without a shread of evidence.

Where the hell is rambone on this one???

LET IT GO for God's sake!

 

[rugertoter]

Sure, and while we're at it, let's round every kraut born before 1925 and send them to the chair.

Hitler, Mengola, Schilling, and those other douchebags are one thing. If one of them were found, yes, draw, quarter, put their heads on a pike outside of the Barandenburg gate. But to hold the conscripted soldiers accountable? I think that's a bit on the extreme side.

Unless this guy was more than just a guard, let him finish his days in peace, he'll meet his judgement on the other side.

I agree, I'm sure there might have been some times that even I might have contributed to things, while in the Marines, that might have been considered subject if we would have been defeated in the field. If this old guy was a part of something like that, then to what extent? Did he actually fire up the ovens or just walk the perimeter? If he was a part of the dirty work, then I'm sure Satin has a special place in Hell reserved for him.

 

[E5RANGER375]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who had a job at a forced labor camp or death camp needs to hang. I don't care if they're 90. They had a direct part in the genocide that took place, even if their job was just to shoot people trying to escape (security).

"Just" a security guard? What do some of you think "security guards" did at those camps?


I doubt the Nazis could have pulled off the atrocities they committed at those camps without the security guards making sure everything ran smoothly.

what about the federal agents who shot innocent people at ruby ridge or waco?

 

[Zephri]

I see zero reason in wasting the money and resources on someone who is already so near death, just for "revenge" for a war that ended so long ago.

Honestly, just let it go already, just let there be peace.

 

[dross]

It is possible to be a guard at a concentration camp and not be a war criminal. We don't hold prison guards to the standard that they must be the deciders for who is guilty, who is innocent, and the laws of the land.

They are however, required to be human. If they commit crimes against humanity, they are held accountable. If they rape, if they murder, if they torture, if they experiment - they know these things are wrong and they are not excused.

As they explained to me as a private in basic training - it is my DUTY to disobey an unlawful order.

I don't care if you're 120 - if you commit murder or certain other crimes you must pay. Your victim(s) didn't enjoy the last 70 years you enjoyed. They're dead - dying at your hand in fear, loneliness and agony. You're ninety so I must feel for you? I spit on you.

Again, the above may not apply to this particular individual - I'm just speaking of principle.

 

[jbombelli]

what about the federal agents who shot innocent people at ruby ridge or waco?

I'm not happy with how either of those worked out in the least. Everyone involved should have been tried, and imprisoned at the minimum if found guilty. All the way up to the top, including a certain attorney general.

 

[techres]

Here's the extent of my religion on INGO,

"Revenge is MINE saith the Lord". "He who is WITHOUT sin cast the first stone".

This all happened 70 + years ago. It is NOT proven this man was involved in ANY murder. No one knows IF he shot, gassed, or incenerated anyone. Where is your almighty Constitution/Bill of Rights at now? Several here have already convicted him without a shread of evidence.

Where the hell is rambone on this one???

LET IT GO for God's sake!

Firehawk, no one here is arguing for his rights to be removed or his process under law to be violated. But we are requiring that he not get a free pass based on age and time since crime.

There is no logical or legal reason to give someone a free pass just because they are old. None. If there is proof of murder or partnership in murder then there is no statute of limitation: not legally, and certainly not morally.

So, please, do not argue that this guy is getting the short shrift here because people want him to face a judge an jury. In fact, our BOR and Constitution and law, would require no less.

You suggest that we are going after this guy with some kind of overly aggressive accusation, yet you open yourself up to the counter argument that you are defending him with an unreasonably lenient defense.

So long as he gets his day in court to answer the accusations against him, then he has been given all man, and conscience, requires for him.

And so long as that day happens, then the rights of any victims he may have had are also observed.

That is why we have law: so that his trial is fair, and there is a trial after all.

 

[Bond 281]

Firehawk, no one here is arguing for his rights to be removed or his process under law to be violated. But we are requiring that he not get a free pass based on age and time since crime.

There is no logical or legal reason to give someone a free pass just because they are old. None. If there is proof of murder or partnership in murder then there is no statute of limitation: not legally, and certainly not morally.

So, please, do not argue that this guy is getting the short shrift here because people want him to face a judge an jury. In fact, our BOR and Constitution and law, would require no less.

You suggest that we are going after this guy with some kind of overly aggressive accusation, yet you open yourself up to the counter argument that you are defending him with an unreasonably lenient defense.

So long as he gets his day in court to answer the accusations against him, then he has been given all man, and conscience, requires for him.

And so long as that day happens, then the rights of any victims he may have had are also observed.

That is why we have law: so that his trial is fair, and there is a trial after all.

What people seem to be forgetting is that there isn't a shred of evidence against him. He's not being charged with anything, and really, how could something even be proven at this point? 90 year-old witnesses about events 70 years ago? Not that there are even any of those.

 

[firehawk1]

What people seem to be forgetting is that there isn't a shred of evidence against him. He's not being charged with anything, and really, how could something even be proven at this point? 90 year-old witnesses about events 70 years ago? Not that there are even any of those.

^THIS^

How many in this thread have stated "hang him simply because he was in the SS" therefore he just HAS to be guilty. GIVE him his day in court before you guys convict him. If found guilty, hang the old man from his neck until he is dead. By God THAT will make all the tin horn tyrants in the world look up and take notice! PALEEZE

I'm not condoning anything that happened in NAZI Germany, but to attempt to go after an old man, 70+ years later with such zeal, and who was most likely just a pawn in all this is astounding to me. Besides, NONE of us were there to truly know what it was like. How many did what they did simply to survive? "You do what I tell you to do, or I will put one in your head". How many here would opt for the bullet in the head? I'll wager VERY few if any.

 

[techres]

I am sorry, what I am seeing is that there is an assumption that there is no evidence against him. That is as stark an assumption as what you are claiming to be against.

Assumptions are bad. Assumptions of guilt, and assumptions of innocence when those assumptions become so strong we claim there is no need to follow through with the law.

I will say it again: If there is evidence against him, it goes to a judge & jury. If the evidence is enough to convict, then convict.

There should be no assumptions here: of innocence, of guilt, or of an assumed free "let's not bother with a trial because he is old and them's was tough times." excuse.

Nope, he gets what all get: legal protections, legal trial, and legal results.

 

[CarmelHP]

When the crime were committed he was young and healthy. How does his living years undiscovered excuse his guilt?

If he sent women and children to their deaths or aided in doing so then his guilt is clear. How many infant and toddler, or mothers' deaths do we forgive because it was too long ago? If he tolerated being at a death camp, how can he say he didn't know?

Before we give out blanket absolutions, how about if we see the evidence. He'll get a trial, something the victims didn't get, and if he is innocent, he should go unmolested. If guilt is proven, why shouldn't he be punished? Would you forgive someone who aided in the murder of your family because he was able to elude capture for long enough?

 

[CarmelHP]

How many did what they did simply to survive? "You do what I tell you to do, or I will put one in your head". How many here would opt for the bullet in the head? I'll wager VERY few if any.

You think this hasn't come up before? Tens of thousands were interviewed during the Nuremburg tribunal and all the evidence showed that if you objected you were relieved of duty. No actual evidence was produced that anyone who objected or refused "special duty" was ever killed or even imprisoned for it.

 

[Bond 281]

I am sorry, what I am seeing is that there is an assumption that there is no evidence against him. That is as stark an assumption as what you are claiming to be against.

Assumptions are bad. Assumptions of guilt, and assumptions of innocence when those assumptions become so strong we claim there is no need to follow through with the law.

I will say it again: If there is evidence against him, it goes to a judge & jury. If the evidence is enough to convict, then convict.

There should be no assumptions here: of innocence, of guilt, or of an assumed free "let's not bother with a trial because he is old and them's was tough times." excuse.

Nope, he gets what all get: legal protections, legal trial, and legal results.

It wasn't an assumption. From the article.

Mr Huryn is understood to have been interviewed by Scotland Yard as a potential witness, not a suspect. A police source said nothing had been found to link him with any atrocity.

And

Mr Huryn, who lives with his English-born wife Diana, also 90, in Fareham, has been questioned by officers from Scotland Yard’s War Crimes Unit. He has not been charged with any offence.

Police, and Scotland Yard, have already looked into this guy and aren't charging him with anything. Too many people here are riding their high horse of morality and blind hatred of anything Nazi to have a real discussion on this.

 

[PatriotPride]

Too many people here are riding their high horse of morality and blind hatred of anything Nazi to have a real discussion on this.

Is this a serious post? I have a hard time believing it is, and if it is...wow. Let's bring the discussion back to reality. There is no "blind hatred of anything Nazi". If anything, it's an informed revulsion. Holding persons accountable for the murder over 6 million innocents and engaging in genocide is not "riding a high horse of reality".

As has been said before, I wonder how you'd feel if your family was murdered and it took you 70 years to find their murderer. Would you not press for justice and accountability?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I can't imagine him living very long in jail before trail.

From a practical stand point, I don't think putting the man in prison or hanging him will do much good, other than assage some long simmer anguish.

Have your trial, find him guilty. Close another chapter in that part of history. The man will be dead soon enough.