90-year-old Heinrich Boere has been sentenced to life in Germany for killing three Dutch civilians when a member of an SS hit squad in the Netherlands in 1944.
Boere was born in Germany in 1921 to a Dutch father and German mother, but grew up in the Netherlands. He voluntarily joined the SS in 1940 and served in Eastern Europe before returning to the Netherlands. There he took part in operations aimed at Dutch civilians who were suspected of either having links to the resistance or harbouring Jews, and he personally confessed to killing three men. After spending time in an allied POW camp, he returned to Germany and claimed citizenship based on his membership of the SS (all SS men were automatically made citizens of the Third Reich). In 1949, a Dutch court convicted him in absentia of treason and the three murders, stripped him of his Dutch citizenship and sentenced him to death. Under pressure from the European Union Germany was forced to annul the citizenship of non-German members of the SS, and Boere has lived in a legally grey area in Germany since then.
The legal issues were finally resolved when German authorities finally pressed charges against him in 2008. He confessed to the three killings but argued the Nuremberg defence (‘following orders’). He was unsuccessful, was convicted, and was sentenced this week.
It is a case I find interesting on a number of levels. It is a long-held legal principle that there is no statute of limitations on serious crimes. As the expression goes, nullum tempus occurrit regi – time does not run against the crown. But we are now reaching the very end of the time at which there are people alive to be held responsible for the crimes of the Third Reich. This may even be the last Nazi war crime trial ever.
I do have to admit that I’m in two minds about this case. Germany has been a model example of how a nation can come to terms with a history of genocide, and it is hard to argue that the West German government did not do its utmost to bring those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity to justice. It is fair to say that the Nazis did not ‘get away with it’ – most of the senior members of the Reich or organisations like the Gestapo and SS who survived the war were imprisoned or executed. Given the scale of the atrocities committed by them, I think it is far to ask whether there is all that much purpose to be served by wheeling a crippled old man into court to answer for shooting three people almost seventy years ago. Individual soldiers on both sides committed crimes against civilians, and the only ones likely held accountable for it today are those who a) have been unfortunate enough to have records kept and b) are long-lived. Is there a point at which we say that everything that could reasonably have been done has been done, stop chasing men who were in the SS and Gestapo in their teens, and close the book? The issue that troubles me most of all, I suppose, is that I have no idea how I would act had I been raised in a country based on institutionalised racism and anti-Semitism and indoctrinated into Nazism from my childhood. Can I guarantee that I wouldn’t have been behind the dock at Nuremberg pleading that I was only following orders? I honestly can’t.
On the other hand, Boere hasn’t been a model of repentance. He has admitted that his actions were wrong, confessed them to a Priest, and claims now to have prayed for his victims. But he still doesn’t seem to take much responsibility for them. I’d like to think that, if I was an accessory to the Holocaust as a young man, I would spend the rest of my life trying to make some sort of amends for it. And there are victims of the Third Reich still alive. While they live, I think they can reasonably ask that those who did not account for their actions should not be able to live in peace.
90-year-old SS hitman given life
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
-
ToshoftheWuffingas
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
The Netherlands were neutral and wished to stay neutral when they were invaded. Check the civilian death toll in those few years. He may not have been the biggest bastard but he did his bit. It seems to me he led a comfortable life all those years after the war. He's hardly in a moral position to grumble. Some amends is better than none.
<a><img></a>
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
Re: 90-year-old SS hitman given life
I don't understand the "two minds" part. The first mind, I believe, is as in vison's first sentence and Tosh's post. So what's the second mind? The argument is that a (not-particularly-repentant) perpetrator should enjoy impunity for a triple homicide because he managed to live to old age in relatively good health? I would want to see a lot of mitigating evidence (around culpability (e.g. very solid duress evidence), mental competence, and/or paid restitution and other amends, etc.) before that would seem like a remotely plausible claim.
There is a need for a societal dialogue on these matters:
- The legality and propriety of the death penalty in societies which retain it.
- When, and whether, it is appropriate to impose life imprisonment with no hope of parole at the outset of a sentence (as in countries like the US and (I believe) UK), vs. imposing an indeterminate sentence that will be reevaluated at fixed intervals based on the perpetrator's suitability for release (as in some Scandinavian countries).
- What level of mental illness or organic brain damage merits reduced or no criminal culpability.
- Whether juveniles who commit homicide should be shown leniency based on their age and potential for rehabilitation.
There is no need for a societal dialogue on this matter: whether there is a length of time after which, or an age at which, you become immune from prosecution for murder(s) that you committed as a competent adult. The answer to that question, forever and always, should be no.
There is a need for a societal dialogue on these matters:
- The legality and propriety of the death penalty in societies which retain it.
- When, and whether, it is appropriate to impose life imprisonment with no hope of parole at the outset of a sentence (as in countries like the US and (I believe) UK), vs. imposing an indeterminate sentence that will be reevaluated at fixed intervals based on the perpetrator's suitability for release (as in some Scandinavian countries).
- What level of mental illness or organic brain damage merits reduced or no criminal culpability.
- Whether juveniles who commit homicide should be shown leniency based on their age and potential for rehabilitation.
There is no need for a societal dialogue on this matter: whether there is a length of time after which, or an age at which, you become immune from prosecution for murder(s) that you committed as a competent adult. The answer to that question, forever and always, should be no.
The trouble is, wars bring out the worst in men and the worst OF men.
I agree with nerdanel that age and survival alone shouldn't give this man immunity from prosecution.
But I also believe quite firmly that war is a kind of collective madness and that so many atrocities are committed in war that to single out one man for 3 murders is rather pointless.
It's as if we're saying: Look how virtous we are!! This man MURDERED three people!!! Even in the midst of a war we mustn't murder people!!!
And at the same time, millions of people before, then and since have been murdered - almost guilt free - because war is a "necessity".
He's guilty, all right. But what about all the other guilty men? The ones who sit in leather armchairs in "situation rooms", moving armies on maps?
I agree with nerdanel that age and survival alone shouldn't give this man immunity from prosecution.
But I also believe quite firmly that war is a kind of collective madness and that so many atrocities are committed in war that to single out one man for 3 murders is rather pointless.
It's as if we're saying: Look how virtous we are!! This man MURDERED three people!!! Even in the midst of a war we mustn't murder people!!!
And at the same time, millions of people before, then and since have been murdered - almost guilt free - because war is a "necessity".
He's guilty, all right. But what about all the other guilty men? The ones who sit in leather armchairs in "situation rooms", moving armies on maps?
Dig deeper.
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
I always found it really strange that there were (and are) "rules" of warfare. That someone could commit "war crimes" when, in a war, the idea is to kill as many of your enemy as possible, until they give up and cry mercy.
War itself is an atrocity. (IMHO) To train men (and women) to be killing machines and then get all bent out of shape because they killed the wrong people, at the wrong time, in the wrong way (My Lai, for instance) seems...well, it seems kind of contradictory.
It's like saying war is "civilized," as long as you follow the rules.
War itself is an atrocity. (IMHO) To train men (and women) to be killing machines and then get all bent out of shape because they killed the wrong people, at the wrong time, in the wrong way (My Lai, for instance) seems...well, it seems kind of contradictory.
It's like saying war is "civilized," as long as you follow the rules.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
Just!!!
Oh. Is there supposed to be justice?
There's a movie out right now, The War Horse.
Remember in All Quiet on the Western Front when the young soldier wept and said no one should send horses to war?
I can't think of that calmly.
No one should send horses to war, for sure.
I like horses and don't like to think of them suffering.
But a horse is a horse. What about young men? Why have we humans, for millennia, sent our young men out to be slaughtered and maimed? There are reasons, all right, reasons I think are rooted deep in our nature, and would probably offend everyone here if I wrote what I think they are.
Women are now killed in combat. But it's not like women weren't killed in wars before, is it?
Oh. Is there supposed to be justice?
There's a movie out right now, The War Horse.
Remember in All Quiet on the Western Front when the young soldier wept and said no one should send horses to war?
I can't think of that calmly.
No one should send horses to war, for sure.
I like horses and don't like to think of them suffering.
But a horse is a horse. What about young men? Why have we humans, for millennia, sent our young men out to be slaughtered and maimed? There are reasons, all right, reasons I think are rooted deep in our nature, and would probably offend everyone here if I wrote what I think they are.
Women are now killed in combat. But it's not like women weren't killed in wars before, is it?
Dig deeper.
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
It's also a stage play with incredible puppetry...playing right now in NYC at the Beaumont Theater. I saw it in London (with Pearly Di) and wept buckets. If the movies is half as good as the play, it will be amazing.There's a movie out right now, The War Horse.
My Grandmother was born in 1896 and lived to be 104. She could be a sour, bitter and manipulative old woman, but she had her moments of wisdom and strength as well. She had seen WWI, sent sons to fight in WWII, seen the Korean War and the Vietnam war and God knows how many other conflicts. When we were engaged in the Gulf War, she happened to be visiting us. My own mother, in an attempt to make conversation, said, "So, Mother, what do you think of this Gulf war going on?"
My grandmother paused and took a sip of her tea. "I think," she said slowly, "that we are insane."
There was no more discussion.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
It looks like Tosh's post implies these people who were killed were civilians, in a country which was not waging war. I think that makes a difference.vison wrote:It's as if we're saying: Look how virtous we are!! This man MURDERED three people!!! Even in the midst of a war we mustn't murder people!!!
I am glad that this guy will face the consequences of his crimes. He has been alive a long time, yes, but those people have been dead a long time. It's so easy to forget the dead, and only consider the living, isn't it?
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Movies on the brain today...
On murder in wartime:
"How many people had I already killed? There were those six that I knew about for sure. Close enough to blow their last breath in my face. But this time, it was an American and an officer. That wasn't supposed to make any difference to me, but it did. S*&%... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500. I took the mission. What the hell else was I gonna do?"
~ Captain Willard, Apocalypse Now (1979)
On culpability in politics and war:
"None of us know our end, really, or what hand will guide us there. A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that."
~ King Baldwin IV, Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
On the objective of war:
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without spilling a drop of blood."
Sometimes rendered:
"and the greatest of victory in any war is when neither side unsheaths a sword or spills one drop of blood..."
~ (likely) Sun Tzu
(okay the last one wasn't from a movie.)
It is important that this man be sentenced for his crimes. What that sentence should be, I do not know. One wonders at the quality of life he enjoyed (or not) in the 60 some years since he committed his crimes? It appears he did some time for the killings but then went on to retain his membership in the SS. At some point he could have disavowed his membership rather than hiding behind the Nuremberg Clause... the balance among repentance, restitution and self preservation seems too heavily weighted to the latter. There is a lot he might have done to try to set things straight in the long life he was given.
On murder in wartime:
"How many people had I already killed? There were those six that I knew about for sure. Close enough to blow their last breath in my face. But this time, it was an American and an officer. That wasn't supposed to make any difference to me, but it did. S*&%... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500. I took the mission. What the hell else was I gonna do?"
~ Captain Willard, Apocalypse Now (1979)
On culpability in politics and war:
"None of us know our end, really, or what hand will guide us there. A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that."
~ King Baldwin IV, Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
On the objective of war:
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without spilling a drop of blood."
Sometimes rendered:
"and the greatest of victory in any war is when neither side unsheaths a sword or spills one drop of blood..."
~ (likely) Sun Tzu
(okay the last one wasn't from a movie.)
It is important that this man be sentenced for his crimes. What that sentence should be, I do not know. One wonders at the quality of life he enjoyed (or not) in the 60 some years since he committed his crimes? It appears he did some time for the killings but then went on to retain his membership in the SS. At some point he could have disavowed his membership rather than hiding behind the Nuremberg Clause... the balance among repentance, restitution and self preservation seems too heavily weighted to the latter. There is a lot he might have done to try to set things straight in the long life he was given.
Hopefully the people sent to fight were sent with some way to fight. Killing a completely defenseless civilian is fairly different, to me.vison wrote:Many of the men killed in war were NOT volunteers. I can't say that I see much real difference between killing them and killing "civilians".
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Except that, in war time, you don't always know who is "completely defenseless" and who is holding a grenade. And you're pumped up full of adrenaline and rage and trained to think of the enemy as sub-human vermin...deserving of execution.anthriel wrote: Hopefully the people sent to fight were sent with some way to fight. Killing a completely defenseless civilian is fairly different, to me.
The mind-set of war is to kill the enemy.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
Agreed. However, I would think the three people killed were not likely to be holding grenades, since their country was trying to be neutral. Anyone can be dangerous, of course, but in this case, it sounds like those three people were defenseless civilians.JewelSong wrote:Except that, in war time, you don't always know who is "completely defenseless" and who is holding a grenade. And you're pumped up full of adrenaline and rage and trained to think of the enemy as sub-human vermin...deserving of execution.anthriel wrote: Hopefully the people sent to fight were sent with some way to fight. Killing a completely defenseless civilian is fairly different, to me.
The mind-set of war is to kill the enemy.
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I didn't mean to say that only those people were innocent civilians. So were all the British people killed in the Blitz and the people at Pearl Harbour.
Every war marches through civilian life. Even in the days when armies lined up facing each other, as at Waterloo or Austerlitz, the civilian populations suffered.
And forever back, even beyond the day they threw the children off the walls of Troy.
That men still make war is one of the two greatest crimes.
Every war marches through civilian life. Even in the days when armies lined up facing each other, as at Waterloo or Austerlitz, the civilian populations suffered.
And forever back, even beyond the day they threw the children off the walls of Troy.
That men still make war is one of the two greatest crimes.
Dig deeper.
-
ToshoftheWuffingas
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
All I will say is that those who think the idea of rules of war is ridiculous and the object of war and/or the route to success is to kill as many of the enemy as possible (without defining the nature of the enemy) are IMVHO very wrong on both ethical and utilitarian grounds.I suspect any discussion is likely to go downhill but I wanted there to be an alternative viewpoint registered.
<a><img></a>