Inglourious basterd Scheungraber captured. Hooray?
|
Wow — we can all rest safe now. Germany has captured another Nazi war criminal. Josef Scheungraber, 90, has been sentenced to life imprisonment, after being found guilty for the execution of eleven Italian villagers in 1944 (after Italy had switched sides to the Allies). The twelve men and teenage boys were herded into a barn, which was then demolished with a bomb, as reprisal for the death of two Germans at the hands of partisans. Only one boy survived. On the scale of the horrors taking place in WW2 mostly, but far from exclusively, by the Axis powers, it’s a small massacre, though undoubtedly right and proper to bring to justice. But that’s if justice is even possible. Though the unit responsible for the atrocity was under Scheungraber’s command, sixty-five years on there are no witnesses to establish that he gave an order for the act, or that he was even present at the village when it took place. The prosecution’s evidence of guilt consist of a evidence that Scheungraber was at the burial of the two Germans killed by the partisans, and that he had told someone in 1970 that he “couldn’t go back to Italy because of something involving the death of eleven civilians”. “His tone of voice suggested he was responsible,” the witness said. Like a whisper down the decades, condemned by the memory of a tone of voice. Yeah, uh, so not exactly beyond reasonable doubt then. If it’s even reasonably possible that the massacre was perpetrated by a junior officer while Scheungraber was elsewhere, then he’s been railroaded. God knows what he, or any other Wehrmacht officer did during the post D-Day years of the war, when the army de facto adopted a 10-to-1 policy of reprisals against civilians for resistance attacks on German troops, but it’s safe to say that thousands of officers guilty of civilian massacres died asleep in their beds. That wouldn’t matter if there was key evidence against Scheungraber — a letter or something confessing the crime — but the dodginess of the evidence surely makes Scheungraber a fall-guy for the obsessive project of the West, Germany included, that of painting World War II as a moral crusade against Nazism. The process has become autonomous, as the window closes on the chance to prosecute actual Nazis and war criminals, and memory of the complex entanglements of the actual war between nations — with a Holocaust in the middle of it — fade to military grey. You will look in vain for any substantial reference to the Holocaust in contemporary records of the event, such as Orwell’s war correspondence, or Brecht’s diaries, and there is certainly no sense in which the destruction of the Jews, nor the bestial behaviour of the German regular army, formed a major, or even particularly important, factor in continuing the war. Indeed, by late 1944, with the vicious Battle of the Bulge, Allied troops were massacring German prisoners in shocking numbers. Behind the prosecution of Scheungraber lies a bigger prize — that of Ivan Demjanjuk, the 90 year old American Ukrainian immigrant who may or may not be “Ivan the Terrible”, a particularly sadistic camp guard, or alternatively a lesser but vicious camp guard, or possibly just some schlub with a common Ukrainian surname. For the last quarter-century of his life Demjanjuk has been put through incessant prosecution and incarceration at the hands of several jurisdictions. If guilty, he deserves all he gets. If not, then an innocent man has been cast into the fires of hell as a burnt offering — the meaning of Holocaust in the first place. That latter possibility should be a haunting one if you take the Holocaust seriously. Any appreciation of its real evil has to include the notion that one has to develop the moral strength to let the guilty go unpunished if the risk of tormenting the innocent is simply too great. Otherwise you haven’t understood why the Holocaust was evil rather than merely grotesque or sadistic. But that is pretty much what has happened in the final act of World War II. In the farcical coda to it all, Quentin Tarantino has climbed aboard, with his new film Inglourious Basterds, a ridiculous fantasy about an all Jewish death squad hunting Nazis in WW2 — and inflicting the sort of torture that has become the central expressive image of American culture, the only manner by which it can imagine intimacy with another human being — and a sadism that released Holocaust victims by and large refrained from. If the West had confidence in its own values, it would find the strength to the most damning judgement of all — indifference to the fate of the guilty, ultimate concern for that of the innocent. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, it has acted, and is acting out a pantomime of salvation, the great “never again” show which legitimises mass civilian killing, not least by our “diggers” to use the ABC’s preferred phrase. The prosecution of Scheungraber and others is the Nazi gold standard by which that process is made possible, a confession of the West’s own profound self-doubt. Still that 90-year-old won’t be burning down any more barns. Book ‘em Danno. |
|
|
|
11 Comments
There is no legal or moral reason not to prosecute an elderly person for crimes against humanity or war crimes. It seems that you are implying we let this bloke go without trial because it all happened a long time ago and there are no reliable witnesses. Imagine if we applied that logic to the Stolen Generation … oops, that’s what Howard & Ruddock did and most of us were revolted by their actions.
War crimes are unlike other ‘crimes’. We should hound these old bastards down to their dying day. Cambodia’s recent prosecution of Kaing Guek Eav for crimes committed only 30 years ago is critical in both the post-genocide healing and also the message that resounds in Liberia, Kosovo etc etc – that is, age and time do not diminish war crimes.
That’s the message too for the US, Australia and others in Iraq and Afghanistan – that we also may be prosecuted for our crimes against civilians under the clock of ‘war’.
“Indeed, by late 1944, with the vicious Battle of the Bulge, Allied troops were massacring German prisoners in shocking numbers.”
Guy, what is the evidence for this extraordinary assertion - it is truly easy to make wild allegations - and this seems to be a corker.
Martin - check any comprehensive history of the latter part of the war. The killing of prisoners by both sides in the Bulge is undisputed, a matter of public record, It simply doesn’t appear in the miniseries, and war movies.
Walter - your logic is circular. You assume that people have got the right 90 year old war criminal, and then assert that they can be hounded down. what if youre hounding down someone who wasnt a war criminal and/or acted honourably? The first Demjanjuk had witnesses who swore blind they had seen him at the camps - even when they were at camps that both the original ‘Ivan the Terrible’ and Demjanjuk (if theyre different people) had never been. People have a desire to see their persecutors punished and that can alight on anyone who might fit the bill. Risking the punishment of innocents for war crimes is an obviously self-defeating act. You haven’t thought this through.
Perhaps you are referring to the Allied Response to the Malmedy Massacre Guy?
Even worse than being illogical Guy – I simply don’t care if they got the right 90 year old or not. Enough war criminals lied their way into Australia and the US (see Mark Aaron’s ‘Sanctuary’) for me to think, so friggin’ what if he killed many, some, a few, was a witness, a bystander, a denialist, whatever. I simply don’t believe in this person’s innocence.
I see a pattern in all their defences – it wasn’t me Your Honour, it was them evil Nazi’s. I was just a foot soldier and did nothing. Funny how 6-8 million Jews, Gypsies, homos*xuals, communists etc all died at the hands of just a handful of war criminals and now we’re being asked to feel some sympathy for hounding a few old farts? Spare me, please.
If you’ve ever given evidence in a case long after the event, let me tell you memory is not reliable. But I approach this from the opposite standpoint Guy – better to prosecute them all than to let live in freedom one mass murder and/or war criminal.
PS. I’m only a totally hypocritical prat in this regard. The rest of the time I’m a big bleedin’ hearted socialist lover of the left. But when it comes to war crimes, I turn into George W!!
Guy, you don’t get off that easily and I do insist on your references to justify “massacring… in shocking numbers”. Go to the US movement into Dachau - there is extensive evidence of a shooting of Waffen-SS guards alongside the barracks wall - stopped by a US Lt Col - all captured on still film - guards from one of eight towers at the camp were killed when they came down as prisoners - again, lots of photos.
The SS troops who killed somewhere between 80 and 150 US troops at Malmedy were tried(!) - many of these were sentenced to death - all sentences were commuted. The trial was not well conducted. All were released - their commander finally dying in a house fire in France in 1976.
There are many reports of prisoner killings on the eastern front. That is not the case for the western front.
A key part of the German strategy was the infiltration of Allied lines by German troops dressed in US uniforms travelling in captures US jeeps. These soldiers when captured were shot summarily. Are you suggesting that this was somehow a massacre by the Allies? Those German troops were well aware of the risks they ran by wearing enemy uniforms.
Where are the massacres by the Allied troops during the Battle of the Bulge, Guy??
A first class piece of informed journalism, GR.
WALTER SLURRY: As the genius who wrote ‘Peter Costello’s Memoirs’ I would naturally not wish to disagree with you. However, I must.
To begin with I used to be in favour of punishing war criminals, most especially the racist bastards of Nazi Germany, and their allies during WWII. However, when I come to look at the crimes being committed by the state of Israel against the Palestinians I find myself to be equally revolted. And wonder why, after all this time, anything should be done to anyone anymore.
You say that its an established fact that it’s fine to punish the elderly. Are you sure?
Have you any conception of the barrage of lengthy tests the man would have to be subjected to. Here we are talking about the tests necessary in order to justify his being tried at all. These sorts of tests are very time consuming, thus making it almost impossible to guarantee the man living long enough to be tried. Then there would be the protesters; more months being spent in trying to keep them apart and allowing them plenty of time to be interviewed by the various media.
Now-assuming the man, Herr Scheungraber, hasn’t tested positive to Alzheimer’s Syndrome and all the other diseases of the elderly, and assuming he is halfway mentally able to cope with at least one and a half years to two years of torment he stands before the trial comes the really hard part.
Thanks to the enlightened system of justice in the Western world, all potential jurors and legal people, especially assorted judges will all want to back off least they attract too much attention from hostile elements. Protesters of all sides, cranks, hate-filled old crones, etc.
Then you have the situation of testimony. Many people will swear they ‘would know him anywhere’. Ever read the book/movie ‘The Man in the Glass Booth” An eloquent testimony of the fallibility of people’s memories. Experts are to be called up and by now two or more years later this amazing circus will be gathering steam. By this time the now ninety year old Herr Scheungruber will be ninety-five. And if he wasn’t loony before this, he will be by then. He will have been crucified in the media, subjected to aural torture by irate on-lookers and had his life well and truly buggered up well before the trial.
All this for what? So as the people who got him into this mess can feel justified in bringing him to this sorry state of affairs.
Revenge feels so morally superior doesn’t it? But it’s a bad way to win points. To this day people feel that the war trials in Nürenberg and Tokyo were a good thing.
Were they? Nearly all the really bad guys got off or committed suicide. Perhaps Winston Churchill, for once, had the right idea. Namely trust in the cause that the Allies were morally superior, because by using this standard one could kill off the bad guys ASAP and the combined superiority would ensure the right people got killed. It’s not my opinion, as I said, it was Churchill.
Looked at rationally it could be argued that the War Trials were an exercise in Public Relations by the winning side.
Venise, yet again you dribble forth this so-called scale of atrocities, comparing one set of injustice against another. This argument makes my bile duct move northwards.
Let’s apply your twisted logic to Australia. What happened to Aboriginal peoples is nothing compared to the virtual extermination of native Americans, so really, you Abo’s didn’t suffer nearly as badly as the 20 million plus natives did in the Americas. Get over it.
And you know what Vernise, it all happened a long time ago. Those Stolen Generation people, their memories must be a bit hazy and unreliable, and anyway, don’t us white folk all look the same to them? Who’s to say which white police officer/protector took which kiddies? Wouldn’t be fair to try to lay blame, would it?
Tribunals and court cases to seek compensation? No, they don’t work, do they? Sends the wrong message doesn’t it?
Shall we all move on Venise and put these alleged injustices, murders, rapes and acts of genocide aside? Sounded good to John Howard. I mean, the Palestinians get it worse than our Indigenous folk, according to you, therefore their claims are ‘lesser’ and in the great scales of injustice, must rate pretty lowly.
Your worldview – let’s move on and not worry about seeking justice against those who have committed crimes against humanity ‘cause they’re old and memory fades and the Gaza strip is worse … honestly Venise, this type of lovey-dovey forgive and forget utopia makes me reach for the inflight brown bag.
PS> the Lockabie bomber. Let him die a miserable death in jail. I knew people on that plane, and I have no sympathy for the terrorist’s cancer claims.
WALTER SLURRY: I see, the minute someone disagrees with you you accuse them of being lovey-dovey and other stupid assertions.
FACT: I did not list any atrocities.
FACT: I called the people on the Axis side of WWII racist bastards. You disagree?
FACT: I dislike what the state of Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Does this make me unusual? I don’t think so.
FACT: The only list I did make out involved me imagining what a ninety year old man, Mr Scheungraber, might have to go through BEFORE he gets to trial.
FACT: I, to my knowledge, have never written about Indigenous Australians. There are other people out there who know a great deal more about this subject than I could ever know. Therefore I don’t attempt to get in on the action.
FACT: I probably know a little more about Indigenous North Americans than I do about Indigenous Australians. I am quite aware what they went through, thankfully such crimes are beyond my imagination.
FACT: The name is VENISE.
FACT: I did not mention compensation.
FACT. I even mentioned Winston Churchills attitude to war criminals.
FACT: I had the temerity to suggest that the allied war trials of WWII were an exercise in Public Relations by the winning side. If you had to attack me I gave you the chance to do it right there. Did you? Not a whit of it.
FACT: I brought up the fact he is ninety. NOT as you appear to imagine a case of feeling sorry for him, but TO SUGGEST the people testifying against him would ALSO be the same age.
To recap. The main thrust of my argument was what ANY potential person having to front up to a War Crime committed sixty-four years ago would go through hell BEFORE the trial ever got under way.
Dear WALTER, I suggest you re-read my list of possible events faced by a ninety year old before he/she even gets to the trial. If you think I’m wrong let me know.
My attitude would be quite different to much younger people such as your Lockerbie bomber.
WALTER SLURRY: I wrote a long rebuttal of your meandering tripe which has apparently been edited out. So this one will have to be brief.
You accuse me of listing atrocities when the only list I made out was a list of imagined, but still relevant, trials a ninety year old person would have to endure before getting to trial at all.
You accused me of being a continual writer of articles about indigenous Australians when, to my knowledge, I have never written about them at all. Preferring to leave it to the experts. In fact, you happily accused me of everything I didn’t do but completely ignored the one thing you could have fun with. Namely: “It could be argued that the war trials (WWII) were an exercise in Public Relations by the winning side”.
Finally I asked you to sober up and re-read my comment so you can see how wide of the mark you are.
Thank you Guy for this enlightened piece
I have long shared your concern about the NAZI hunters and their orchestrated publicity.
Justice Marcus Einfeld did impress once when he reportedly said:
“Justice delayed is justice denied”.
This sums up the sound points made by Rundel and Alstergren.
For the many reasons mentioned, hounding a 90+ yo. for alleged crimes committed 70 years ago is illogical and unjust.